On Generational Drift and Conflict - in Response to Bonnie Raitt Winning a Grammy

[Killing Floor]

Wait...
One of my favorite taco places of all time makes them EXACTLY the same as when I went there in the 70's.
Its almost spooky. I think even the decor is at least 95% the same.
I talk to the proprietor from time to time. Descendent of the original owner.
"Yeah, we don't do change well"

But you know what has changed?
Washing machines.
My midrange machine measures the load. Uses only as much water as needed. When it senses an imbalance, it stops and redistributes the load. Too many more tricks to list.
It replaced a machine who's best talent was the imbalance dance that 80% of the time resulted in the machine moving and blocking the laundry room door.

Now that's progress!

Wait. What was the subject?

But you, if a band from the 60s or 70s or 80s is good enough to be regarded as an influence, like Raitt, then the next logical step is some of the people who are influenced run with the best ideas. Nothing stands still.

But there is no best. Music or laundry.

 

[MarkieMark]

Exactly the point.

 

[WRHB]

So, you married her for her good taste?

Lol. I think that’s all of our wives.

 

[tele12]

Thousands of times more artists with more ideas. Those ideas are no longer throttled by label executives. More choices, hundreds if not thousands of times more avenues to discover new music.

Competition and choices make everybody work harder.

Same way cars and tacos are better today than in the 70s, music has evolved in so many ways over the past 4 decades.

So you are saying the "competition" to get YouTube clicks is going to produce better musicians than the competition to get live gigs, get people to pay to come to those gigs and get people to buy their records and CDs.

Has that hypothesis been peer reviewed.

 

[Blackmore Fan]

By the way, because it keeps getting mentioned here, if you're regularly consuming ranch dressing you're just playing it safe. Blue Cheese is similar, but more rich, and therefore more nuanced. Give it a go. And this is from someone who used "French" dressing until I was 17 or 18 (because it's a kid's dressing), and then moved "up" to ranch...until I finally grew up and moved to blue cheese. Blue cheese has character...ranch is just plain. And if you're putting ranch on french fries or pizza, you should shop for better french fries or pizza.

 

[Rockinvet]

well at least now another generation know who Bonnie Raitt is. I just try to look at the positive even though I am not a fan of the Grammy awards.

 

[Killing Floor]

So you are saying the "competition" to get YouTube clicks is going to produce better musicians than the competition to get live gigs, get people to pay to come to those gigs and get people to buy their records and CDs.

Has that hypothesis been peer reviewed.

If I told you my neighbor is a 21 year old rapper you’ve never heard of, owns a multimedia studio and a recording label, bought his all friends Hellcats and is a multimillionaire you would not accept him as a musician anyway. If he has more than 100 million streams and downloads you’d still think that’s just click bait. Fine then.


Unless you watch the same movie every day, why would you care to hear the same songs every day? If music can’t be improved why bother playing?

Have you found the perfect song?

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

By the way, because it keeps getting mentioned here, if you're regularly consuming ranch dressing you're just playing it safe. Blue Cheese is similar, but more rich, and therefore more nuanced. Give it a go. And this is from someone who used "French" dressing until I was 17 or 18 (because it's a kid's dressing), and then moved "up" to ranch...until I finally grew up and moved to blue cheese. Blue cheese has character...ranch is just plain. And if you're putting ranch on french fries or pizza, you should shop for better french fries or pizza.

I hate blue cheese!

 

[tele12]

If I told you my neighbor is a 21 year old rapper you’ve never heard of, owns a multimedia studio and a recording label, bought his all friends Hellcats and is a multimillionaire you would not accept him as a musician anyway. If he has more than 100 million streams and downloads you’d still think that’s just click bait. Fine then.


Unless you watch the same movie every day, why would you care to hear the same songs every day? If music can’t be improved why bother playing?

Have you found the perfect song?

What in any of my posts would make you jump to the conclusion that I would not consider a rapper a musician?

You can certainly make an argument that the current digital delivery systems are fairer and more accessible to musicians than previous systems, but that doesn't make the music better.

New and different music is not "improving" on existing music.

And there are many songs that could be considered "perfect" , could never be improved on.

 

[Killing Floor]

What in any of my posts would make you jump to the conclusion that I would not consider a rapper a musician?

You can certainly make an argument that the current digital delivery systems are fairer and more accessible to musicians than previous systems, but that doesn't make the music better.

New and different music is not "improving" on existing music.

And there are many songs that could be considered "perfect" , could never be improved on.

Nothing made by mankind is perfect. But I hear you. There is no best.

 

[bowman]

I personally think that awards don’t mean much in reality. By that I mean that it doesn’t seem to have much bearing on the quality of the product. I include Oscars and Tony awards, etc, with that. If you’re the award winner, then yes, it’ll make you more money, but it doesn’t mean a lot to me as a consumer. I’m older now, but even when I was young, it seemed like a small number of select voters were telling all of us what we should like - and by implication, why we were unhip morons for not agreeing. Well, I guess I AM unhip, but I’m not a moron.

 

[2HBStrat]

Several things:

1. The fact that Bonnie Raitt is not unknown, but is actually extremely well known.
2. The fact that this commentator, even if they didn't know who Raitt is prior to the event, was following the event and would have known who she is due to her being introduced multiple times and featured in a high profile performance. Which means they would have learned she is not unknown, making it implausible they would have written that headline in seriousness.
3. The fact that she was sitting at a table next to Taylor Swift. They don't put unknowns at the best tables.
4. I have a sense of humor and can laugh at harmless jokes made about the things that I like.
5. I don't have a thin skin about musical generations and assume my generation is under attack by younger (or older) generations.
6. I don't assume young people are ignorant about older music artists.
7. When I read something about music that I think is absurd, I question whether that thing is a joke. Usually it is.
8. I understand what a "hot take" is.
9. I understand that most of the internet is about drawing attention to oneself, or one's media outlet. In this case, they clearly were doing that, and succeeded.

I worked with a girl about 10 years ago...she's about 20 years younger than. I mentioned Jimi Hendrix and she said " is that some comedian?" So, just because WE'VE known about someone forever doesn't mean that someone younger has ever even heard of them.

 

[hepular]

not gonna trawl through ALL of these answers to refer to one @Killing Floor point:

YES Music HAS changed for the better. Not necessarily for musicians getting paid obscene amounts of cash for various ways of bumping it with a trumpet (look it up, it's from a musical Bonnie Raitt's dad coulda been in), but for all of us, THERE IS SO MUCH GOOD, heck GREAT MUSIC OUT THERE. Played by all sorts of weirdos and normies, in tons of different genres. & then there are the youtube weirdos dedicated to posting really REALLY obscure LPs from the 70s etc.

&, remember, the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar, Sugar. (#2 was Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In)

 

[MarkieMark]

I personally think that awards don’t mean much in reality. By that I mean that it doesn’t seem to have much bearing on the quality of the product. I include Oscars and Tony awards, etc, with that. If you’re the award winner, then yes, it’ll make you more money, but it doesn’t mean a lot to me as a consumer. I’m older now, but even when I was young, it seemed like a small number of select voters were telling all of us what we should like - and by implication, why we were unhip morons for not agreeing. Well, I guess I AM unhip, but I’m not a moron.

Well, if we are going to refer to award shows that are 100% fashion and drama, thatsa whole nuther colored horse...

not gonna trawl through ALL of these answers to refer to one @Killing Floor point:

YES Music HAS changed for the better. Not necessarily for musicians getting paid obscene amounts of cash for various ways of bumping it with a trumpet (look it up, it's from a musical Bonnie Raitt's dad coulda been in), but for all of us, THERE IS SO MUCH GOOD, heck GREAT MUSIC OUT THERE. Played by all sorts of weirdos and normies, in tons of different genres. & then there are the youtube weirdos dedicated to posting really REALLY obscure LPs from the 70s etc.

&, remember, the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar, Sugar. (#2 was Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In)

There is GREAT new music "out there."
You are unlikely to discover much of it via the Grammy's et al.
And they are unlikely to be able to do more than buy lunch for the crew when it does well.

That is the new world we live in.

 

[FenderGyrl]

Why is Madonna, who hasn't done anything musically relevant for years being embraced, but Bonnie is being dissed? Oh, because she's on TicToc.
Hmmm .....

All I read is how poor Madge is being ridiculed for getting the Pete Burns special on her face, because...you know...aging women are scorned in our society. So, go Reptilian or else.
Yeah...okay. Dont tell Cindy Crawford.

But no respect for Bonnie, who just aged naturally and is still making music?

 

[telemnemonics]

If I told you my neighbor is a 21 year old rapper you’ve never heard of, owns a multimedia studio and a recording label, bought his all friends Hellcats and is a multimillionaire you would not accept him as a musician anyway. If he has more than 100 million streams and downloads you’d still think that’s just click bait. Fine then.


Unless you watch the same movie every day, why would you care to hear the same songs every day? If music can’t be improved why bother playing?

Have you found the perfect song?

An interesting addition to the idea we can compare music live streamed and downloaded 100 million times yet we have never heard of the seemingly famous artist; is that consumer youth has moved away from ownership to access.

And in doing so, access options cultivate an alternate to having "discriminating taste".
Just look at unboxing video stars who make money on adverts based on number of hits or streams or views.
And kids playing video games with huge audiences, making money that way.
Or Korean tweens making big money steaming themselves putting on makeup or talking about dating etc etc.

Youth prioritizing access to media products they might not choose to buy if it cost $20 at the record store, still consume via hits or streams or downloads, and money is made.
But much of that is not artists making great art and getting recognition for how great their art is.

So I have no clue about your 21yo rapper neighbor, asid from having a sense that making great art or being a great artist who truly advances art, needs maturity or wisdom which does not come right after puberty, and they need education training and experience, same thing, takes years to get that stuff.
So while Hip Hop or Rap falls under my definition of music, I am skeptical that 21yo kids today are now making better music than the entire rest of history can show.

Referring back to a former post of yours where you said todays music is better than music of the past, because music has advanced.

Maybe your neighbor is not included in that claim though?

 

[telemnemonics]

not gonna trawl through ALL of these answers to refer to one @Killing Floor point:

YES Music HAS changed for the better. Not necessarily for musicians getting paid obscene amounts of cash for various ways of bumping it with a trumpet (look it up, it's from a musical Bonnie Raitt's dad coulda been in), but for all of us, THERE IS SO MUCH GOOD, heck GREAT MUSIC OUT THERE. Played by all sorts of weirdos and normies, in tons of different genres. & then there are the youtube weirdos dedicated to posting really REALLY obscure LPs from the 70s etc.

&, remember, the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar, Sugar. (#2 was Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In)

Well remember that reading that "the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar Sugar" is like reading that "ash is brighter and alder is more middy".

I remember 1969 and not a damn soul liked Sugar Sugar sugar, cept maybe a few sheltered little children.
Or the squarest of squares?
Maybe the Rockefellers tots liked Sugar Sugar?

 

[mystichands]

This is a long post. Jog on if that's a problem.

I'll put a TL;DR at the end...

One common theme on TDPRI seems to be generational differences. Whether it's "Boomers" or "Millennials" or "Generation Zed-Beta-7" or "New Gen X/Y" or "Post Millennial Gen B prime/post subset 19/20" or whatever - a common theme is to generalize and stereotype conflict based on age. It goes in both directions.

I just read the thread about "unknown" Bonnie Raitt winning a Grammy, and was thinking about how that relates to the idea of Generational Difference. Some commenters said Raitt is no longer "relevant," or that her demographic is too small to be a valid winner. Here we see confusion between quality and audience size/market share and "relevance." These measurements arguably have little to do with the quality of one's art. Popularity, novelty, and sales are valid measurements, but they are not measurements that affect how a critical listener judges and appreciates art. I have nothing against Lizzo, but comparing Lizzo and Bonnie Raitt is problematic without context, and without asking one's self why you think one deserves a Grammy and one doesn't. What has Raitt contributed or added to our culture? What has LIzzo? Is there actual value in those contributions?

If your experience and taste is based only on the last 10 years, and may be based on pop-culture sensationalism and repetition - then you may lack the context and critical thinking skills of a 60 year old fan. And if you, as an older listener, summarily dismiss modern pop without understanding the context of the market and modern listener, well you haven't exactly understood the nuances of the time and context in which it was created (zeitgeist) and may be summarily predisposed to dismiss it as "bad."

Ultimately, any industry that awards itself with such pomp is suspect, in my view at least. If Raitt's award seems like an anomaly, well...is it?

I've read a lot of Roman history and surviving Roman writings. Some Romans literally wrote that they felt the young generations were lazy and foolish and would be the downfall of their society. Likewise with Elizabethan and Victorian and Edwardian writers. If every new generation was as lazy and clueless as they all thought, well - we wouldn't be here today.

I have been working at Universities for about 15 years. I have been fortunate to get to know many young people over that time. My office currently has several student workers throughout the week. Some are clueless and do not even perform at the minimum standard; others are on time, engaging, and take the job seriously, and teach me something every week. None, however, can explain what Bussin' really means (joke). This difference of performance, I feel, is a matter of innate personality and upbringing, and not a generational thing.

Incidentally, the adults and older adults I work with reflect the same basic ratio of doing the minimum, and of taking pride in their work and relationships. Put any 10 people in a room (I don't care if they are Freshmen or Ph.D.s or Masonry Laborers or Engineers or landscapers or Dentists or Harley Mechanics) and 3 will perform poorly, always be late, barely squeaked through their training, and think a majority of things are "stupid."

For a while at another UNI I was one of the few people who ran and maintained a Plotter - basically a huge color printer for large UNI research posters. It wasn't really part of my job, but I had acquired the ability to keep the thing running because of the proximity of the thing, so I did it. As we'd load and proof and print the posters off thumb drives I'd chat with the kids about their research and stuff. I learned a great deal from the ones who were engaged and prepared.

The ones who failed to schedule a time to print, or didn't finish on time...these are the ones who were rude, complained, did not engage, whose products were poor, and who blamed everything and everyone else for their failure. I'm suggesting this is not generational, but rather just an unavoidable subset of humanity. I will admit I sadistically enjoyed it when they failed to schedule a time to print and in order to pass the class had to spend $100 at the local print shop to print their posters.

One summer we had advanced High School kids come in for a few weeks for a special summer research program. They all made posters and I was printing them. The kids were complaining about having to read "stupid old books." They wanted to read new books, books of their generation instead of classic literature. One said "I think we should stop teaching those old books and read something new." These kids were young, like 15.

I said "I disagree, and I will tell you why." The kids all looked at me with suspicion and unease. Kids are used to being told things, not presented with reason and clear arguments they can respond to, so they were ready for another "being told" moment.

I suggested that it is important to try and understand how those who built our world as we know it were thinking. I suggested that framing our world in that context, and then thinking about it and how we got here are very valuable exercises. Ideas and knowledge and history often require context to have true value. We cannot avoid the beliefs and mistakes and fallacies of the past unless we understand them. We cannot truly develop taste and a rich appreciation for art and literature unless we understand what came before. If we don't we run an even greater risk of stagnating as a society, of succumbing to base art forms, and of ultimately repeating ourselves with diminishing returns. If you read classic literature, and don't like it, you should be able to explain why, and then you can create something new in reaction to it.

If you don't we run the risk of more and more people not even being aware they are simply paying to hear or see what they already think, and mocking those who think otherwise to justify themselves.

I asked the kids what they thought about that. They all had furrowed brows and were processing the ideas I presented. None had much of an argument. Their teacher didn't either. I was open to discussion, but the argument I presented was enough to get those gears spinning in their heads.

On the other hand, I have had conversations and experiences with young people that opened my eyes to many things I was not aware of, of blind spots. My Nephew drew a fighter plane. I said "That guy in the pilot's seat sure has long hair." He said "It's a lady, Uncle THX, not a man."

As a kid in the 70's I would not have drawn a woman as a pilot...it was part of the context and time I grew up in. His experience was different, and probably better in some ways. That interaction, and many others have helped me ask myself why I used to think what I did, why I like what I like, the context and shortcomings of the time I grew up in, and why I now think what I think.



TL;DR - Yeah, I'm not doing that, fool.

I totally understand what you’re saying. I am a former history teacher as well as a musician. Knowing who Bonnie Raitt is, and who she was, and her influence in music, etc, is a generational thing. I can remember her first album, I liked it, I think I was impressed by her version of Bluebird, as that was a tune I’d liked even earlier, by Buffalo Springfield. I don’t interface much with younger people these days, as I live on a farm, miles away from the nearest town. But I try to listen to new music. Anyway I thought your comments were interesting, and I could relate.

 

[hepular]

Well remember that reading that "the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar Sugar" is like reading that "ash is brighter and alder is more middy".

I remember 1969 and not a damn soul liked Sugar Sugar sugar, cept maybe a few sheltered little children.
Or the squarest of squares?
Maybe the Rockefellers tots liked Sugar Sugar?

which just proves how insular our 'taste' groups are. I was 5 and wore the hell OUT of my back of the cereal box 45 of that thing.

(& given that my parents were splitting up, my brother was a drug addict and mostly kicked out of the house, which occasionally had the power turned off, and I got kicked out of said house one day for not making an acceptable flower pot in kindergarten, you can take your sheltered kid line and do what you want to with it.)

Now, #6, "Dizzy," that one sucked.

 

[Killing Floor]

Well remember that reading that "the #1 single of 1969 was Sugar Sugar" is like reading that "ash is brighter and alder is more middy".

I remember 1969 and not a damn soul liked Sugar Sugar sugar, cept maybe a few sheltered little children.
Or the squarest of squares?
Maybe the Rockefellers tots liked Sugar Sugar?

Just knowing that ABBA is popular again has me quite concerned. For everyone.