Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: WARNING: The Government Will Do Unspecified Incoherent Things To You Previous entry: We Must All Unite Against Unity

Kids These Days aren’t Kids These Days

History

Ta-Nehisi Coates has put up a couple of interesting blog posts lately about Barack Obama’s (at least somewhat) faux bashing of video game consoles and iPods, which seems for all the world to be a kind of proud old-fogeyism that we all have encountered.  Of course, the exemplar of the form is Andy Rooney, who, as Ta-Nehisi notes, is right on cue with a rant about how he doesn’t get young people and their music.  He seems genuinely surprised that, as time goes on, pop music changes.  (And even then it kind of doesn’t.  The overwhelming power of the Baby Boomers as a giant demographic is such that artists from the 60s and 70s can still chart by repackaging their old stuff in handy new forms to give as gifts.) 

It’s a pretty standard issue use of self-deprecation in order to conceal what’s really an implication that Kids These Days are stupid, which is why he rounds the piece off by saying that he may not know who Lady Gaga is, but Kids These Days don’t know who Ella Fitzgerald is. Which caused me to roll my eyes, and I was glad that Ta-Nehisi saw it the same way:

When I was a kid at Howard, I used to go into Ben’s Chili Bowl and hit the jukebox. I always played Otis Redding, The JBs, or Sam and Dave. I knew this music for two reasons: 1.) It was what my parents played, and on long road trips their music, not mine, was the soundtrack. It’s like being black in America—I knew that part of their world in a way that they could not know mine. 2.) Hip-Hop created a culture of Digging In The Crates. The notion was that digging through crates and crates of records to find a gem was something to be prized.

Whatever you think of the music, no self-respecting hip-hop head, at that time, could ever get away with saying, “Man, I don’t be listening to no Ella Fitzgerald!” Your friends would have looked at you like you were crazy. Knowledge—not the kind of ignorance Rooney evinces here—was prized. I remember going into Ben’s and the old heads looking over and going, “Son, what you know about that?”

I rolled my eyes because just last week I spent the entire week burning my CD collection, and it spanned the 1920s through the 2000s.  (With some Ella Fitzgerald mixed in—-both original recordings and remixes from our era.) And, like with Ta-Nehisi, this isn’t some thing that has come over me in my 30s, some desire to get in touch with my past, but it goes back to my whole life, for similar reasons to his.  This isn’t really unusual with my generation or the generation that came after us, the ones that are being dubbed Generation Y or the millenials. 

I think Rooney probably just doesn’t know that.  I think what happened is he dusted off a rant that he’s being keeping in circulation since the Boomers were the Kids These Days he was ranting about.  I remember being a kid, probably in junior high, and coming across a piece he wrote in 1980 where he talked about how sad John Lennon’s death was, because even though he didn’t get the Kids These Days that liked Lennon, the man did seem like a good husband and father at the time of his death.  So, this is something that’s been up Rooney’s butt since roughly forever.  He’s just reusing old material, but it doesn’t really fit anymore. 


This is always an issue when you talk about general trends, so I’m going to state this up front—-please, I realize you’re a remarkable exception to the rule and you wish to brag about it while shaming me for not knowing the anecdotal details of your life.  But this post is about broad cultural trends, not your anecdotal exceptions, and I’d be so grateful if you could refrain from confusing the two in comments.

I think what’s happened is that the unique historical experiences of the Boomers when they were young have come to stand in for all relations between generations.  It’s actually understandable in a way.  The defining cultural theme of their youth was that they were a Youth Culture, and that they were completely breaking with tradition.  The music was new, the clothes were new, the attitudes were new, the sexual mores were new.  Even people who were more conservative of that generation (and they were the majority—-they voted in Reagan, remember) still bought into the completely remade cultural landscape. The music of the 60s and 70s was drawn from older forms, but it was regarded as fresh and exciting. 

But what I’d like to point out is that this model, where young people break from older generations and strike out on their own, was culturally unique to the Boomers, the generation that created the “Don’t trust anyone over 30” motto.  Gen X (roughly born 1964-1981) and Gen Y (1982-2000) don’t actually fit into the narrative.  In fact, starting in the late 70s, blatant recycling and reinvention became the innovation, and that’s stuck with us to this day.

Hip hop is most prominent and most influential example of this.  The entire form is built on turning old into new.  Entire subgenres of the music will be created from a single influential sample.  Without this attachment to history, the form doesn’t exist.  Punk rock and New Wave were mining similar territory.  The whole point of The Ramones was to take 60s-era sounds and update them a little as a refutation to the bloated stadium rock that defined rock in their era.  And everything since has been about recycling.  Vintage clothes, retro soul, cult movies, even “Mad Men”.  Everything old is new again for Gen X, though often we put an ironic twist on it. 

“But Amanda,” you might argue, “Sure, hip hop DJs brag about their enormous record collections, but the fans don’t care where it came from.  Hipster chicks may have vintage dress collections but they’re a small minority of a larger generation.”  And you’d have a point.  But I’d point out that the elite who value history and knowledge are the taste makers of their generation, and pop culture actually reflects this willingness to wear your influences on your sleeve.  At least since the 90s, recycled culture has become the mainstream culture, and this is only becoming more true. 

Take, for instance, this video that has been passed around since it came out, but which I only had the chance to watch first last night.

I felt like this was Betty Draper’s theme song, as imagined by Beyonce. Consider also that the famous choreography in the “Single Ladies” video is an homage to a Bob Fosse routine from the 60s.  Or let’s take Lady Gaga, who Andy Rooney has never heard of, and her new video.

Which is an homage to….Quentin Tarantino, who has taken recycling and post-modern irony to the big screen and has become a powerhouse for it.  You can’t say the man is a small indie director selling his retro vision only to a tiny cadre of artsy-fartsy types who enjoy sticking it to the mainstream.  He is the mainstream.  Or consider how fashion has become all about recycling.  Now the trend is to recapture 90s fashion that was inspired at the time by West Coast hipsters who dressed themselves in thrift store flannels due to the fact that it’s cold up there.  (Not that this stopped fashion designers from creating flannel pieces that cost hundreds of dollars to drape over thrift store-inspired dresses that cost thousands.)  Some of this recycling is ironic, like the Beyonce video.  But most of it—-hip hop sampling, Tarantino flicks, Amy Winehouse, etc.—-is actually in love with the source material, and considers the recycling an homage.  But should be no question about it—-it is the mainstream.

It’s a testament to the power of the Boomers that their specific generational narrative is rounded up to be the narrative for all subsequent generations, even in the face of this evidence that the narrative just doesn’t fit.  The power of their narratives points to why it is that subsequent generations aren’t actually rejecting and rebelling in the same way that Boomers did.  For all that people my age enjoy taking popshots at Boomers because of their dominance, in reality, we really didn’t have a reason to rebel like youth in the 60s did.  We were born into a world where distrust in authority was already established, where sexual liberation was a given, where the idea that you had to put away things you love in your youth just because you age had died out, killed by Boomers who insisted that they weren’t too old for the music they loved as kids.  People don’t rebel in a vacuum.  There has to be something to rebel against.

Which is why I laugh every time I see some article claiming that young people nowadays are rebelling by being chaste or conservative. That’s not a) rebelling or b) happening. The only reason that narrative has resonance is all is that people buy into the fallacy that younger generations automatically reject older ones and everything they stand for.  But obviously, that’s simply not the case with the post-Boomer generations. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:17 AM • (96) Comments

And WHAT’S the deal with the INDUSTRIAL revolution?

Comment #1: norbizness  on  05/13  at  11:43 AM

It’s probably easier now than ever for younger folks to adopt the music and other culture of older generations because they can get it free of context.  When you download a song, it doesn’t have your Dad attached to it.

Comment #2: oldfeminist  on  05/13  at  11:44 AM

Even then, not so much.  I like a lot of music because my parents liked it. There simply isn’t anything about my parents’ generation I want to reject so strongly that I reject their music.  I mean, there was cultural conservatism to reject, of course, but it was dramatically weakened since the 60s.  My parents have told me they weren’t even allowed to wear jeans to school, and the girls were forced to wear skirts.  When you’re tied down so tightly, rebellion is the norm.  We weren’t tied down by older generations, and so stuff that was reminiscent of them didn’t have this other meaning.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  11:50 AM

Amanda has some really cogent critiques of this kind of old-fogeyism, and exactly why it is pointless.

And anway, since every generation is just a fragile foolish flickerflash, a chance permutation of some random dumb stuff that we try to turn into a style, and since every single era of pop culture is like this, why get so stuck on one era to the detriment of another? There is no point deprecating what the kids are doing today any more than there is a point in dissing what your parents did, or their parents time either.

Comment #4: atheist  on  05/13  at  11:53 AM

How are the Ella Fitzgerald remixes, btw? I’m curious but I don’t want to shell out $$ for something that is going to make me feel like Andy Rooney.

Speaking of retro sounds, I was able to get a couple of sample tracks of the Dum Dum Girls’ new CD off of the Sub Pop site this morning, and it was pretty good.

Comment #5: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/13  at  11:57 AM

He’s just reusing old material, but it doesn’t really fit anymore.

It probably didn’t ever fit. 
My folks knew their folks music, but not so much the other way around.  Ditto me and my folks. 
With my kids, I don’t get/know all of their stuff, but their Dad does, so it’s going both ways for the current generation in my family.  Of course, they are way more world music et al than I am, so it is as much musical likes and time (time is a huge factor, I just don’t have any) as not being interested in the kids music.

Comment #6: helen w. h.  on  05/13  at  11:58 AM

The defining cultural theme of their youth was that they were a Youth Culture, and that they were completely breaking with tradition.  The music was new, the clothes were new, the attitudes were new, the sexual mores were new.

Except, of course, it wasn’t that way, really The music of the 60’s and 70’s had a firm foundation in the music of the past.

Comment #7: rea  on  05/13  at  11:58 AM

Why are you talking about Boomers with Rooney?  He’s from the previous demographic.

Comment #8: helen w. h.  on  05/13  at  12:00 PM

I’m not sure that the music of the boomers’ youth even fits Rooney’s model. I mean, Dylan knelt at the feet of Woody Guthrie. The Beatles covered show tunes on their early albums. (Paul McCartney was always a music-hall crooner at heart.) The Stones wished they were bluesmen. Janis was deeply immersed in the music of previous generations. And so on and on.

There was a generation gap in the sixties, yes, and it was a chasm. But every generation feels that tension—look at the cultural politics of the Obama-McCain election, and the way that their age difference was centered (and massaged and caricatured) as a political tactic by the Obama camp. Obama-McCain was youth vs. age in pretty much exactly the same way that RFK-LBJ was.

You’re right that there’s less repudiation of the past now than there was in the sixties, but I just don’t buy the idea that Rooney’s analysis has much value even applied to that era. The sixties were a heyday for youth appropriation and repurposing of previous generations’ pop culture—outside of music, look at the vogue for vintage film and the popularity of counterculture books from Siddhartha (1922) to Catcher in the Rye (1951).

Comment #9: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:07 PM

“Except, of course, it wasn’t that way, really The music of the 60’s and 70’s had a firm foundation in the music of the past.”

It is a very cruel thing to point out to the hippies that the beatniks were there first.  (Not sure how the beatniks feel about not being special snowflakes, either.)

Comment #10: preying mantis  on  05/13  at  12:07 PM

While you have little beef with your parents’ culture, Amanda, you still presumably have one with your grandparents’ and further back.  Their generations are the ones for whom Ella was a pop star.

For a long time, Ella couldn’t even go in the front door of most places she performed. 

Today, the music is more divorced from the people who first listened to it, and the cultural crap that surrounded it, so it doesn’t have the taint of racism, sexism, rigid role models and so on.

You don’t have to hang out with Andy Rooney to enjoy music he enjoys—not that you absolutely had to before, thanks to the stacks TNC refers to, but it’s simply easier now.  Amanda posts a link and bunches of us listen and enjoy.  It’s associated with Amanda in our minds.

In that sense, it can be good to forget history, at least for a while.

Interesting Andy Rooney fact:  he’s an atheist.

Comment #11: oldfeminist  on  05/13  at  12:08 PM

By the way, when Elvis Presley stepped into Sun Studios to try to figure out how to turn blues, white gospel, and hillbilly music into something of his own, Andy Rooney was thirty-five years old. He was a World War II veteran, a husband and father, who had been working on the Arthur Godfrey show for five years.

He was a fogey even then, and I’ll bet you five dollars he had no idea what Elvis’ music was grounded in.

Comment #12: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:20 PM

Pretty much rock-solid on the aspect of everyone knowing their parent’s generation rather than vice versa. Much like women have to know both men’s and women’s culture, minorities, their culture and white’s. So too, the young grow up steeped in the “‘rents” culture as well as their own and much like privileged people of other classes, those of the older generation have to make an effort to broaden themselves to understand it.

And the reasons are pretty obvious. The music, the history that comes from what the parents have is where everyone starts out. It’s the music in the car trips growing up, the “when I was your age” stories, and the iconography around the house. Before anyone can really even begin to find out what “their scene” is they’ve been steeped in their parent’s scene.

And yeah, it leads every generation to do the “kids today” rant because it truly is foreign in a way their culture isn’t to their kids.

I would however note that the Boomers also built on the old. Building on the early rock of Elvis and chuck berry, bebop jazz, and other musical movements was at the heart of many of the “iconic” bands of the boomer generation.

Jazz, especially, as it’s where the whole idea of a “remix” or “cover” comes from and it’s what inspired the latter musicians down the cascade. Every generation since has also had superficial full reinventions (punk, metal, rap, autotune, videogames). Really, it’s just a sort of soup that each generation tries to explain later as some fully connected thing because “the rents don’t understand”.

But yeah, good article.

(OT, my family situation has the culture thing swapped. They got fully into the new stuff, while I’ve mostly been wallowing in “their” culture and what immediately came after. Which is a totally exception that proves the rule thing as they had to be active to keep abreast of new culture and the reason I got to wallow and “grow up with theirs” was because it was everywhere in the house while growing up.)

Comment #13: Cerberus  on  05/13  at  12:20 PM

Why are you talking about Boomers with Rooney?  He’s from the previous demographic.

Did you read the post?  I’m serious, because it answers your question.  I feel like I should just cut and paste, but I’ll rephrase: I’m mentioning Rooney, because he’s using a narrative he used to bash Boomers, and he’s applying it to younger generations, even though they’re not the Boomers.

Comment #14: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:23 PM

It’s probably easier now than ever for younger folks to adopt the music and other culture of older generations because they can get it free of context.  When you download a song, it doesn’t have your Dad attached to it.

Especially true for those whose parents didn’t really listen to much music when they were growing up beyond classical and maybe some jazz as my parents and older relatives and/or first generation Americans whose parents still prefer the music of their birthplace and refuse to allow the playing of any modern American/Western music in the house as was the case of most high school classmates. 

Though one can glean something from listening to stuff off of passing car stereos and radios/stereos at friends’ houses, there was a lot of songs I was familiar with from listening…yet I didn’t know the name of the artist, song, or even the genre. 

Listening to most American popular music from the 1950’s to present is fresh to me and others like myself because our parents didn’t really listen to much music, wouldn’t allow the playing of such music in the house, and/or our parents were pre-boomers and didn’t identify with the boomer culture.  The first and last were applicable to my situation, especially considering that in our extended family….the boomer relatives tended to be older cousins….not parents or older relatives of the previous generation to be regarded with reverent awe sufficient to be used as authority figures to rebel against.

Comment #15: exholt  on  05/13  at  12:25 PM

While you have little beef with your parents’ culture, Amanda, you still presumably have one with your grandparents’ and further back.  Their generations are the ones for whom Ella was a pop star.

No, because I never experienced what the youth of the 60s did, which was those generations directly oppressing me.  And this isn’t about ME, it’s not about any individual.  This narrative—-that young people automatically revolt against their parents—-is a very specific narrative of the 60s.  That’s basically my point, though I probably shouldn’t get too wound up when people are missing it.  When it comes to these things, people are so eager to write their idiosyncratic narratives on there that they can’t help but miss the larger point.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:25 PM

Angus, that’s all true and great, but it’s not the narrative of the 60s.  The narrative of the Boomers was a break with their parents.  There were influences, but they operated in a different way for their audiences than nowadays.  Please, the point—-that rebellion isn’t nearly the same force for subsequent generations culturally—-I think stands.  No one is so dumb to think that the Stones didn’t know blues.

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:27 PM

I agree fully.  This is something I’ve thought for a long time.

I’m a grad student and happened to be on campus the other day when there was a big, ridiculous party for the graduating seniors and rising seniors, where they taunt each other and stuff (don’t ask, it’s really stupid).  I managed to walk through the height of it, where the two classes, separate previously, confronted each other.  The juniors’ marching band was playing… “Don’t Stop Believing”.

That song is 30 years old, and yet, for whatever reason, it still has enormous resonance with college kids born in 1989.  And I think it extends back considerably further than that, certainly to the Beatles, the Stones, Zeppelin, and other titans of the late 60s/early 70s.  Every wedding one goes to still prominently features a lot of Motown.  And so forth.

I really do not think this was true for my parents’ generation.  When my Dad was graduating from College 40 years ago, would they have held graduation parties and played songs from 1940?  I can’t even imagine it.  The very best of the pre-boomer popular music has survived reasonably well, I guess, but the vast majority of it has sunk into deep obscurity, and actually did so pretty quickly. 

Wikipedia notes that the biggest hit songs of 1940 were Glenn Miller’s “In the Mood,” Artie Shaw’s “Frenesi,” and Bing Crosby’s “Only Forever”.  Did any significant number of college students in 1980 have any idea how any of those songs went?  Looking at 1970’s biggest hits, some of them are really cheesy, but even those are still fairly well known (“Close to You,” “Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head,” “Spirit in the Sky”).  Of the top ten billboard hits in 1970, I’d say only Freda Payne’s “Band of Gold” has fallen into obscurity.

There’s just a gaping generation gap between the boomers and their parents that isn’t present for subsequent generations.  We are familiar with their cheesy music in a way that they are not familiar with their parents’ cheesy music.

Comment #18: jlk7e  on  05/13  at  12:29 PM

They were probably familiar with it, jlk, but mostly they were indifferent.  And I think your point about cheese is the critical one.  To say, oh the Stones loved the blues is to miss the point completely.  For them and many of their fans from the middle classes, the blues wasn’t their parents’ music—-like you said, it was Bing Crosby and whatnot.  But for us, our parents music is relevant to us.  They actually did listen to rock and soul and disco and funk.

Comment #19: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:32 PM

When I was a teenager (late 70’s), I “rebelled” against my parent’s & older sibling’s favorite music because I thought I was “supposed to”. I had been led to believe by popular culture that I had to have “my own music” and that theirs was “old & tired”. It wasn’t, of course, but for the longest time I wouldn’t even listen to anything recorded before 1977. I still have some of my prejudices, but for the most part have come to appreciate popular music from all eras.

Comment #20: Mark  on  05/13  at  12:33 PM

Re: Amanda’s comment 17, I’ll add that while musicians of all generations obviously appropriate older music, in the 60s they also rejected tons of older music.  The music of Bing Crosby and Perry Como and Lawrence Welk was just left to die, for the most part.  Obviously, current musicians still draw on older music in the same way they always have, but what’s unique is that even non-musicians are quite familiar with the highlights of boomer pop music.  The Beatles are still listened to by young people today in a way that Glenn Miller and company were not listened to by young people when our parents were young.

Comment #21: jlk7e  on  05/13  at  12:34 PM

Also, sorry for all the quote marks. I just re-read that. ugh.

Comment #22: Mark  on  05/13  at  12:34 PM

Andy Rooney, 3000 years ago:

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L.
Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment, p. 277
(1953).”

Comment #23: Mike Nilsen  on  05/13  at  12:38 PM

Also, point for jlk on the way that younger people listen directly to the older music, and not just to that stuff influenced by it.  A lot more Xers have huge collections of stuff that came out long before they were born than Boomers.  And Gen Y seems to be no more interested in rejecting previous generations than X was, maybe even less so.

Comment #24: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:38 PM

I’m certainly still a fan of Hendrix, the Beatles et. al. (not to mention Robert Johnson, from the 1930s, and Mississippi John Hurt, from the 1940s-50s). As well as music from the 70s, 80s, 90s etc.

I once had this conversation about rebellion with my mother. We were noting that my generation did not rebel since we had nothing much to rebel against. I wish I had made the connection Amanda makes, back then. Obviously, the reason was that my parents had done all the rebelling, and then they had never felt the need to force strictures on us their kids. As a result our relationships are much more peaceful than the relationships between my mother’s generation and her parents.

Comment #25: atheist  on  05/13  at  12:45 PM

I guess what I’m saying, Amanda, is that I don’t see the idea that growing up means breaking with, and creating an adversarial relationship to, your parents as being as sixties-specific as you do.

It’s all over the youth culture of the 1920s, from Fitzgerald on down. It’s present in the early-to-mid fifties in Elvis and JD Salinger and the beats and The Wild One and Rebel Without A Cause. It’s a powerful strain in punk in the seventies. It’s the theme of The Breakfast Club—which, though admittedly a product of the Boomer sensibilities of John Hughes, resonated powerfully for me as a teen.

Yes, as I said, the sixties were a high-water mark for youthful alienation. But Rooney’s bullshit is of a piece with bullshit that parents were peddling about their kids in 1927, 1956, and 1979. It didn’t start with the sixties.

Maybe things are different today. Maybe there’s not that adversarial relationship in the culture. That’s quite possible. But the tension between embracing and rejecting the past—a tension that Rooney’s silliness does an injustice to both sides of—was a constant in American youth culture for most of the 20th century.

Comment #26: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:46 PM

I really don’t think you can compare the Stones using the blues to hip hop artists directly sampling records in terms of wearing it on your sleeve.  Hip hop, and other forms like it, are often about breaking down the wall between being influenced by and just taking.  The Stones using blues riffs aren’t homages so much as being influenced, but sampling something occupies a different cultural space.

Comment #27: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:47 PM

Angus, I think the perceived continuum is somewhat revisionist, because of the Boomer narratives.  Prior to the 60s, rebellion was just that—-rebellion.  It was bohemian and in opposition to mainstream middle class white culture.  The 60s actually turned youth rebellion into the mainstream white middle American culture.  Not that prior instances of rebellion didn’t start to leak into the mainstream, but like you said, the 60s were the high water mark.  And so their narratives—-narratives, mind you, not the specifics—-became norms in a way that don’t really make sense when you’re talking about generations before and after.

Comment #28: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:50 PM

One last thought—Elvis was born in 1935. James Dean was born in 1931. Marilyn Monroe was born in 1926. The pop culture that’s persisted is postwar pop culture, not boomer culture. The shift to cultural persistence happens in the mid-fifties, before the boomers are producing and consuming much of anything.

Comment #29: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:52 PM

Great piece, Amanda!

Hubby and I saw this AR piece on TV, and we both just looked at each other and giggled.  We started saying things like “arg…kids these days and all their fancy-smancy ‘music’ n suff…how come I’m old?  How’d that happen?  I’m confused.  Get off my lawn!  Arg!”

Comment #30: roro80  on  05/13  at  12:52 PM

To be 100% clear: I’m not picking on anyone.  I don’t think one milieu is superior to another. I think the differences arose out of historical particulars, and people reacted in the way that made the most sense to them.  This retro cool wouldn’t make sense if the Boomers hadn’t had their rebellion.  Both make sense to the time they happened.

Comment #31: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:53 PM

Angus, there’s often an age gap between the tastemakers and their fans.

Comment #32: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:54 PM

I’m late GenX but I got a lot more musical influence from my older sister (earlier GenX) than I did from my parents. I never much cared for the Beatles or the Stones, and it always chafed me to hear the angry rebukes of people who felt that I had to pay some sort of cultural homage to these greats, and that all music that followed after boomer music was some sort of pathetic echo. I’m not really sure what to attribute it to, but it always came off to me like the boomers weren’t so much failing to grasp that there were new sounds and musical styles as anger that their precious contribution to the culture was not a granite edifice to remain throughout the ages.

Comment #33: Mighty Ponygirl  on  05/13  at  12:54 PM

And Gen Y seems to be no more interested in rejecting previous generations than X was, maybe even less so.

If anything, I’ve found that Gen Y and the younger cohorts of Gen X tend to be far more open to different types/eras of music than older generations and older cohorts of Gen X with a few exceptions. 

Many of the pre-boomer generation I worked with during elections, parents/older relations, and even older boomer and Gen X cousins/friends/acquaintances tend to quite set to only listening to certain types of music….and only ones from their generation or slightly older with a few exceptions.  Most of my older relatives could not seem to fathom how I could love punk/pop-punk, 50’s/60’s rock, world music, classical/jazz, and Chinese folk/pop songs dating back to the 1930’s…..some of which was considered far too old fashioned even by my parents’ generation. 

One exception is a boomer-aged cousin who loves 90’s alternative pop-punk just as much as I do…..which is far more than I can say for other cousins in his demographic….or even many of the older Gen X cousins, friends, acquaintances who were indifferent at best….and sometimes just as hostile to that period/genre of music as the older generations.

Comment #34: exholt  on  05/13  at  12:55 PM

That’s a good point about the normalizing of rebellion, Amanda, but again, I’d argue that it was Elvis and James Dean and Brando who turned youthful rebellion into mainstream white middle American culture.

Comment #35: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:56 PM

For instance, early hip hop and punk artists were actually late Boomers. But the youth that absorbed the worldview they created were Xers.

Comment #36: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  12:58 PM

there’s often an age gap between the tastemakers and their fans.

Which is why I took pains to say “before the boomers are producing and consuming much of anything.”

Part of the boomer myth of the sixties is that they were the first generation to rebel. That myth, like so many boomer myths, has become firmly entrenched in our culture, and like so many boomer myths, it’s largely bullshit.

Comment #37: Angus Johnston  on  05/13  at  12:59 PM

I do wonder how many conservative Boomers grew up thinking Sinatra and Crosby were the bee’s knees and only later, as adults, decided that the Stones and Hendrix weren’t the devil.  Kind of like how a lot of the people who were carrying the “race-mixing is communism” signs protesting integration back in the day retconned themselves off the wrong side of history and now pretend (or honestly believe) they were never actually pro-legal-segregation.

Comment #38: preying mantis  on  05/13  at  12:59 PM

There was also a big cultural break in the 1920’s, with jazz, and the 1930’s, with lots of stuff, that became the mainstream (and the rebellion in the 1930’s was much bigger and more far reaching). It can also be argued that Frank Sinatra and Bing Crosby were the first real pop icons ( and they were ‘crooners’ not singers), so the youth culture of the 1940/50s also went mainstream.

Historically, this is a new phenomenon. After all for most of human history, most people didn’t have a choice to the type of music they listened to so there was no real generation gap. It wasn’t until mass culture came about with large sheet music releases, then records, and then the radio that most people had a choice.

Comment #39: JohnL  on  05/13  at  01:08 PM

This narrative—-that young people automatically revolt against their parents—-is a very specific narrative of the 60s.

Very true, as anyone who walked down Telegraph Ave in Berkeley, CA, on a warm summer night in 1969 could tell you it was common to see young women who demonstrated their feminism by going without a bra in public.  That was a wholesale revolt against the prevailing culture of their elders.

It wasn’t just another version of the hijinks of the Roaring Twenties(drinking, necking, petting, etc.) which was also seen as a manifestation of “rebellious youth”,  it was political and it was real.

Comment #40: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/13  at  01:09 PM

I, for one, definitely remember going up to the attic to raid my mom’s old records when I was in 8th grade and got *really* into the Beatles.  My mom pretty much instantly got tired of hearing stuff she’d listened to so many times (though she was admittedly one of the super-crazies back in the day) but my dad used to love it when I’d bring some on a car trip, because he didn’t really remember most of the specific songs, but it sounded familiar.  Of course, nowadays, my mom still listens to her music from the 80s and my sister keeps my dad up to date with new stuff, so maybe my parents are just weird Boomers.

Comment #41: Mimi  on  05/13  at  01:10 PM

The reason that Hip Hop is the most original music form is that it draws so directly (and deeply) from the historical music archive. Old becomes new, rough edges are encouraged and not sanded down and sanitized.

There are crappy forms of all music (it’s called “mainstream radio”); Hip hop is no exception. But the real innovation in music happens in the hip-hop genre.

Comment #42: James K. Polk, Esq.  on  05/13  at  01:12 PM

I agree with the observation, but I’m not sure I agree with the analisys…

There was more that happened in the sixties than just a bunch of American teenagers rebelling against their socially conservative parents. The student demonstrations in Paris in ‘68, the Prague uprising, liberalisation in the USSr and lots of other major and minor cultural currents were propelling the post-war generation towards rejecting modernity and entering a post modern world that is characterised by recycling, reusing, reinterpreting, deconstructing and reappropriating both the past and the present.

After the initial cataclism, a violent reaction the the Humanist/Modernist worldview that was widely blamed for Nazism and the ravages of WWII, we settled in to a world where every cultural phenomenon is context free, ahistorical and open to consumption or rejection by atomised, context free individuals freed from social context and pressure. Existensialism flourished as the philosophy of this movement, and existensialism is hugely solipsistic.

The “everything is retro” aesthetic is the flip side of the “nothing is sacred” aesthetic. In that senes Rooney is still wrong, but he’s not wrong because his analisys of generational dynamics is off, but because he’s missing the major cultural/philosophical paradym shift of the 20th century by a country mile.

Comment #43: MarinaS  on  05/13  at  01:15 PM

I do wonder how many conservative Boomers grew up thinking Sinatra and Crosby were the bee’s knees and only later, as adults, decided that the Stones and Hendrix weren’t the devil.

Most of the ones I’ve met still hated the Stones and Hendrix.  Instead, they now are among the types who feel classical music and grudgingly jazz is the be-all and end-all of music while watching old episodes of Lawrence Welk on PBS and listening to Sinatra, Crosby, Patti Page, Doris Day, etc. 

Many of the ones I met in Ohio are also really into country/country rock.

Comment #44: exholt  on  05/13  at  01:15 PM

What a hoary bit by Rooney. He did an “I don’t get today’s music” bit back in the late ‘80’s, only the objects were Michael Jackson’s Bad and Springsteen’s Tunnel of Love.

Comment #45: Dr. Squid  on  05/13  at  01:21 PM

Just a brief note: Dinah Shore.

Comment #46: DBK  on  05/13  at  01:23 PM

Not that prior instances of rebellion didn’t start to leak into the mainstream, but like you said, the 60s were the high water mark.  And so their narratives—-narratives, mind you, not the specifics—-became norms in a way that don’t really make sense when you’re talking about generations before and after.

Case(s) in point: the iconoclastic art movements of the early 20th century, such as minimalism and Dada. Even though The Rite of Spring has become a solid part of the standard repertoire, and kids of every generation know it from seeing Fantasia, I just don’t see that you can call it “mainstream.”  People who listen to dissonance for pleasure are a minority. The majority of listeners’ first reaction is still “I don’t get it, I don’t like it.”

Comment #47: Cris  on  05/13  at  01:24 PM

Dark Avenger, the 1920’s was also part of a deliberate cultural and political shift aimed against the previous generations. The young generation had gone into WWI hopeful and came out cynical and outraged against the manipulation by the older generation (really, read the books written in the 1920s). Together with the Russian revolution and the cultural revolution brought on by the car (which helped to bring in a real substantial sizes middle class) and the radio, this was a much bigger shift than what happened in the 1960s

Comment #48: JohnL  on  05/13  at  01:26 PM

What a hoary bit by Rooney. He did an “I don’t get today’s music” bit back in the late ‘80’s, only the objects were Michael Jackson’s Bad and Springsteen’s Tunnel of Love.

I imagine it included the mandatory “joke” about how the kids today say “bad” when they mean “good”?

Comment #49: jlk7e  on  05/13  at  01:32 PM

Hmm. Now that I read what I wrote I realise I did not remotely convey what I really meant. Here it is:

Modernism was all about innovation and progress. The Rite of Spring, Cubism, abstract art, Bauhaus etc., were all about doing something completely new, totally original, and very often the idea was that by that very fact, it will be better.

But Modernism was widely dicredited after the politcal cataclysms of mid-century Europe, and was seen as opening the door to totalitarianism (vide the modernist architecture favoured by Mussolini and Stalin, though Hitler wa a bit of an outlier on that particular one).

So, when after the war the new generation of young people wanted to reject that creed, and rebel against it in the most violent and visible way possible, they had no option but to reject innovation. So yes, there was a visible chasm during the fifites/sixties, but it was never about rejecting the past. The immediate past became straight away a repository of source material for recycling, reusing, repurposing etc. There was a certian amount of innovative thinking around pop art and drawing inspiration from mundane objects and themes - comic books, soup cans.

But in its essnetials, post-modernism (which we are living through now) is conservative. So the whole ironic retro such-and-such a decade is back thing is not so much a reflection of the fact that young people today have less to rebel against and more about the fact that innovation/rebellion was built in to the modern mindset of the generation that made the break with modenity, but is not built in to ours in the same way. These days young people are more likely to act subversively by repackaging the past, mocking it, reinterpreting it for their own needs.

This ahistoricity comes with its own threats, no less potent than those that were seen in Humanism & Modernism. We’re prone to apathy, ignorance, solipsism and inertia, and that’s dangerous at a time when we need to be reinventing our entire material culture if the planet is not to go cablooey on us…

Comment #50: MarinaS  on  05/13  at  01:40 PM

Angus Johnston @ 29, 35, 37 completely reinforces my question re Rooney.  Rooney was making this comment at least as much about the end of TGG/Post WWII as Boomers; they, a sort of ignored group, were the kids he initially complained about.  He likely based it more on beatnicks.  Also, that “narrative of the 60s” hit different parts of the country over a span of 15+ years, not that convienient for naming purposes decade.  It wasn’t mainstream in some parts of the country until well into the 70s.
For some reason, my 20 something daughter likes Patsy Cline, a lot.

Comment #51: helen w. h.  on  05/13  at  01:40 PM

There is nothing new—Puccini’s La Boheme got the hippies exactly right; Paganini had the girls screaming and fainting; young Mozart ws the Justin Beiber of his day.

Comment #52: rea  on  05/13  at  01:40 PM

For some reason, my 20 something daughter likes Patsy Cline, a lot.

And Loretta Lynn and Jack White make albums together.

Comment #53: rea  on  05/13  at  01:43 PM

Not taking issue with the main points of this post, only I’m wondering if (thanks to more sophisticated technology) the increasing ease over the years with which people can access pieces of our popular cultural past (and thus the degree to which that past permeates our present) has something to do with the proliferation of “recycling” of those pieces.

Comment #54: Russell60  on  05/13  at  01:47 PM

really, read the books written in the 1920s)

For the record, I started reading Mencken when I was 14 years old, and I’m quite familiar with the culture of the time.

Yes, women were getting their hair bobbed, starting to work in offices as typists and secretaries(it used to be common in American businesses for secretaries to be young men, didya know that?),  and they got the vote, but that wasn’t as strong a pushback as women individually deciding that they were going to wear what they wanted, social conventions be damned.

Comment #55: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/13  at  01:58 PM

I’m very late Boomer, born in 1958 - I was certainly not part of the “boomer rebellion” of the 1960s when I was in grade school. My son was born in 1987, and I thought part of the proper education of an adolescent who showed an interest in current popular music included an understanding of the underpinnings. So..we had a deal. For any holiday that presents were appropriate, he could ask for any CD he wanted, and along with that, he got one that I or my then boyfriend (who was a musician) thought it was important for him to listen to.

He’s now almost 23, and whenever I go somewhere with he and his girlfriend, I always giggle a little bit when I hear what they listen to in the car. It’s all the stuff I insisted he listen to back when he was 12 or 13 and thought old music was “dumb.”

Comment #56: Broce  on  05/13  at  02:01 PM

I completely reject the generation of those born 6 months after me.  I just can’t relate to them.  I like Banarama, they listen to that Bangles crap.

Comment #57: Desslok  on  05/13  at  02:03 PM

I think that a great little novelty book would be a collection of “Kids These Days” quotes through the ages, starting with the Socrates on someone quoted above, plus things like:

“I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on the frivolous youth of today” - Hesiod, 8th century B.C.
“The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress.” - Peter the Hermit, 1274

I’m sure an enterprising scholar could find a whole lot more.

Comment #58: Phoebe Fay  on  05/13  at  02:31 PM

Right on, TheLady.  (I thought the first post was very clear and interesting, but the second made your points even better.)

Comment #59: Unree  on  05/13  at  02:35 PM

That’s all very interesting, TheLady, but I don’t really think it refutes my point in any way.  That these kind of things happen before is fascinating, but I was talking very specifically about how Boomer narratives have turned into universal human narratives, but reality is very different.  Younger generations don’t rebel by default; they usually have something to rebel against.

Comment #60: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  02:42 PM

Also, I do think high art is more invested in rebellion than popular culture artifacts are.  High artists are competing with their predecessors for investment, energy, and attention.  In popular culture, newness alone is rewarded, and so there’s not a built-in need for the up and coming to set their sights on the historical, which is already out of the way.

Comment #61: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/13  at  02:44 PM

“I think that a great little novelty book would be a collection of “Kids These Days” quotes through the ages”

<u>Hie Thee Hence From Off My Lawn, Thou Pestilential Youth: A Compendium of Sagacious Elders on the Subject of Subsequent Generations</u>.

Comment #62: preying mantis  on  05/13  at  02:47 PM

Amanda, I wasn’t refuting your point so much as trying to put it in a wider context. I agree with you that the narrative of Boomer rebellion is unjustly seen as universal; but where I differ with you is in the recognition of youthful rebellion per se. The sixties didn’t happen because of generational conflict, but because of a wider philosophical paradigm shift in reaction to the horrors of WWII. That it was the young who mostly led the vanguard of this movement is incidental to the wider context.

Comment #63: MarinaS  on  05/13  at  02:51 PM

No, Obama is right. Apple is a piece of shit.

Comment #64: sirkowski  on  05/13  at  02:53 PM

sirkowski: also, eeeviiiil.

Comment #65: MarinaS  on  05/13  at  02:55 PM

I think this kind of stuff starts getting problematic when applied to other mediums than popular music.  Although there are obviously large cultural/artistic trends that encompass many different fields, there are also cycles within each, and generalizing can confuse matters.

Is there a tendency for one generation to rebel against the things that the previous generation loved?  Of course there is.  It’s kind of part of growing up to realize that your parents were wrong about some things (and another part of growing up to realize that they were right about other things…)

But I do think that there was a real revolution in popular music which perhaps began with Elvis, but really culminated in the mid-60s.  The stuff which was popular before that was swept away, and a new paradigm for popular music was created.

And then it never went away.  Since 1964, there has never been a time when the Beatles were not popular.  Someone who was 15 when the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan is about 60 today.  People who were 60 when the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan were 15 in 1919.  “I Want to Hold Your Hand” is still universally recognizable.  The biggest pop recordings of 1919 were already completely obscure by 1964. 

I think technology had/has a lot to do with this.  The advent of the LP was hugely important for preserving recordings for future generations, I think, and then the CD and the MP3 have only expanded this.  The music of 1919 was obscure in 1964 in part because it was rare and difficult to find - recorded on old 78-rpm gramophone records and the like.  The music of 1964 is all easily available in digital forms.  That helps a lot.

Obviously, there’s still some generational rebellion, but I think the idea of generational rebellion *in popular music* is something that was perceived as kind of a universal generational thing in the 60s, and then proved not to be at all.

Pete Townshend infamously hoped he’d died before he got old, and it’s easy to mock him for it, given the shambling mess that he and Roger Daltrey were at the Super Bowl, and the fact that he’s done nothing but get old for the last 30 years.  But that song hasn’t gotten old; it’s still relevant.  The very fact that we know it, and care enough to make fun of him about it shows that.  Nobody in 1965 was making fun of the proclamations made by popular musicians in 1920, because nobody really knew anything about what those proclamations were.

Comment #66: jlk7e  on  05/13  at  02:56 PM

That pompous gibbering bag of fuck is still alive?

Comment #67: PhysioProf  on  05/13  at  03:08 PM

It is much easier to find out about and get copies of all types of music now.  I went to college in 1982 and I never even heard of Can and Big Star until the 1990s.  This is despite the fact that I liked bands like the Fall, X, and Jesus and the Mary Chain.  It wasn’t as if I didn’t buy older records.  I liked the stooges too.  But records were expensive and it was harder to create communities around bands that were not on the radio.

Apparently this was worse in the 1960s.  Most rock critics did not know about Robert Johnson until the rolling stones did a cover of “love in vain”.

Andy Rooney has been a ridiculous curmudgeon on TV for over 30 years.  That is hard to do and likely will never happen again.

Comment #68: lemmy caution  on  05/13  at  03:10 PM

Gee, the Baby Boom first rejected its parents and whatever came after, musically.  Gen-X?  Well, lets say that the ACCORDIAN became a rock instrument again.  Blue Note Records was faced with either suing or signing a hip hop act that liberally sampled its wares and became highly successful doing so (they signed them).  Etc.

My uncle, born in 1956, took a lot of shit from his peers for “digging in the crates” because he collected both contemporary rock and any good jazz and blues that he could get his hands on, even if it was on 78s!  I can’t imagine anybody my age getting the same sort of scorn for loving anything good. (I also owe my love of instrumental surf rock to him - he thought it was cute that I’d start dancing, so he gave me 45s ... my parents asked that they not be some of the garage rock I also loved at age 3 because the lyrics weren’t always appropriate).

Comment #69: Ms Kate  on  05/13  at  03:31 PM

What is interesting for my grade school kids is that youtube is their most important source of music access.  Someone will tell them about a singer or a singer will get a new disney show then my kids will watch all the videos.

Comment #70: lemmy caution  on  05/13  at  03:34 PM

There are different levels of rebellion. Jazz really became popular in the 1900s and was dominant in some form until the 1950s (or even into the early 1960s—remember the beatniks were into jazz not rock), but it did change styles (ragtime, swing, ...) .

The same is true of rock which has been dominant since the 1960s or 1960s, but ...
the British invasion swept away most of the dominant rock of the time and was built on earlier music;
punkers mostly didn’t like most of the music of the 1960s and 70s looking instead back to 50s rock;
in the 1980s we didn’t like the disco the dominant music of the (late) 70s;
in the 1990s we didn’t like the hair bands of the 80s and instead liked music based to some extent on the punk of the 1970s.

It’s hard to say how long a dominant culture might last, because, as I said above, a mass culture has really only been around for a bit more than 100 years and there have been only two major shifts (Jazz and Rock).

Comment #71: JohnL  on  05/13  at  03:38 PM

No, because I never experienced what the youth of the 60s did, which was those generations directly oppressing me.  And this isn’t about ME, it’s not about any individual.  This narrative—-that young people automatically revolt against their parents—-is a very specific narrative of the 60s.  That’s basically my point, though I probably shouldn’t get too wound up when people are missing it.  When it comes to these things, people are so eager to write their idiosyncratic narratives on there that they can’t help but miss the larger point.
Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte on 05/13 at 10:25 AM

I have no problem with the idea that you’re not rebelling against your parents. 

But you do, presumably, stand against some other things.  It’s not on explicitly historic grounds; there are a lot of people out there who have no interest in fifties culture, yet espouse typically fifties cultural values about gender and race.

I’m really just saying that the music isn’t as tightly coupled as it used to be with particular generations, because you don’t have to be a part of a particular culture or generation to immerse yourself in that music.  If you had to hang out with people of that generation or culture group you might decide you don’t like it that much after all, because of a mental association of jerks with that particular music.

Not that you are “rebelling” against your grandparents.

Comment #72: oldfeminist  on  05/13  at  03:41 PM

Funny, but the dialog in our home goes something like “hey! that’s MY skinny tie ... you are what ... WEARING IT TO SCHOOL with a t-shirt???” and “don’t hit the buy button on that I-tunes ... we have those already ... no, not just vinyl ... cd too”.

Comment #73: Ms Kate  on  05/13  at  03:52 PM

The biggest pop recordings of 1919 were already completely obscure by 1964.
Comment #66: jlk7e on 05/13 at 12:56 PM

“The biggest pop recordings of 1919” is really not comparable to the biggest pop recordings of 1964, because there was no radio-as-ubiquitous-entertainment in 1919.  You had to select the record, buy the record, and play it, rather than just switching on the radio and bopping along all day with it wherever you went, in the car, on the beach, wherever.  The transistor radio is a huge development when it comes to mass media.

I am amused to see that the Wikipedia article on 1919 music featured “I Ain’t Gonna Give Nobody None O’ This Jelly Roll.”  Filthy, filthy! 

I personally do know several of the songs listed; “A Pretty Girl Is Like A Melody” is still well-known.

Comment #74: oldfeminist  on  05/13  at  04:02 PM

In the Medieval days, the old people were complaining about Gregorian chants!

Comment #75: Albert Cirrus  on  05/13  at  04:20 PM

I beg to differ: Andy Rooney is no baby boomer, but part of the old fart “Greatest Generation” (I’m a boomer and remember thinking Rooney was an old fart 20 years ago.)

Comment #76: judybrowni  on  05/13  at  04:27 PM

I beg to differ: Andy Rooney is no baby boomer, but part of the old fart “Greatest Generation” (I’m a boomer and remember thinking Rooney was an old fart 20 years ago.)
Comment #76: judybrowni on 05/13 at 02:27 PM

Funny, Amanda wrote:  “I think what happened is he dusted off a rant that he’s being keeping in circulation since the Boomers were the Kids These Days he was ranting about.”

Comment #77: oldfeminist  on  05/13  at  04:43 PM

Now is not a good time for me to read your article and think about it in depth. But to bolster your point, at least one of them, my daughter is graduating high school this year and she knows Ella Fitzgerald is. And I’m pretty sure she didn’t get that knowledge from us (the parental units). Certainly not in depth. If anything bothers me, it’s that kids these days know and like all too well the music their parents grew up with. When I was a kid, we rebelled against everything our parents likes. Isn’t that how it should be?

Comment #78: chuckling  on  05/13  at  04:57 PM

“When I was a kid, we rebelled against everything our parents likes. Isn’t that how it should be?”

Depends on how much your parents’ taste sucks.

Comment #79: preying mantis  on  05/13  at  05:20 PM

jlk7e and lemmy caution have it pretty much dead on.  The technology of media really has revolutionized how we experience culture, across the board.  I’d even go a step further… not only are the hits of 1964 more accessible to us than the hits of 1919 were in ‘64; the hits of 1919 are accessible to us now, too.  We have unprecedented access to performances across time, and the ability to experience them both as originally performed, and as the basis for innovation.  More than ever in our history, we don’t just reinvent compositions, we both re-experience and reinvent specific performances.  If that doesn’t give us a direct connection to previous generation’s experiences, I don’t know what does.


This video is a good description of a specific example:  the “amen break”.  (20 minute video about a 6 second drum loop; but very interesting.)

I don’t want to make it sound like I’m saying that we live in TEH BESTEST MUSICAL TIME EVARRR, but kinda, we do.  Not that we aren’t without our problems (ahem… autotune abuse… coughcough) ; but it’s easier to find good music from across the spectrum now than probably ever.  This has of course given rise to the conflict between recombinative innovation and copyright law, but that’s another issue…

Comment #80: jamie d  on  05/13  at  05:44 PM

I rebelled against everything my parents were and stood for except their music.  I even liked Fiddler on the Roof, but my folks never got into Zep or the Stones or pretty much anything I really liked.  What made it acceptable and a non-argument with regard to my music was that I was accepting of their music.  If I had rejected that, then they would probably have had an issue with me listening to what I liked.  Or “dug”, as I used to say when I was one of them young’uns.

Comment #81: DBK  on  05/13  at  05:50 PM

Eh, I’m not all that surprised by Rooney’s commentary… it’s the epitome of his brand identity.  Andy Rooney’s entire career is built upon his self-portrayal as America’s leading crotchety old curmudgeon.  When has he ever NOT been critical of “kids these days” in the past 30 years?

Comment #82: DTG in STL  on  05/13  at  05:55 PM

Even people who were more conservative of that generation (and they were the majority—-they voted in Reagan, remember)

True, though I would point out that the “Reagan Youth” of the 1980 election was comprised principally of younger Boomers born at the end of that generation in the late 1950s and early 1960s.  This group that is occasionally referred to as “Generation Jones” - specifically, President Obama’s age cohort.  It’s basically comprised of the youngest members of the Baby Boomers crossing over into the oldest members of Generation X, people mostly born in the 1960s.  Both Barack Obama (b. 1961) and Hillary Clinton (b. 1947) technically can be considered Baby Boomers, though I would argue that there are pretty vast cultural differences between a Boomer who was in their early 20s during Woodstock (Clinton) compared to a Boomer who was barely in kindergarten at that time (Obama).

Al Sharpton often gets lumped in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, but he is always quick to point out that he was only eight years old when Dr. King spoke in Washington in 1963.  He’s arguably more of a Baby Boomer than President Obama, but he doesn’t really consider himself as such, as he was basically a child during the 1960s cultural revolution that gets characterized as the essence of the Baby Boom’s mark on American history.

Comment #83: DTG in STL  on  05/13  at  06:10 PM

It’s hard to say how long a dominant culture might last, because, as I said above, a mass culture has really only been around for a bit more than 100 years and there have been only two major shifts (Jazz and Rock).

Any explanations/comments about the increasing “get offa my lawn” type refrains I hear from various musicians ranging from classical to rock that with the advent of computers and technological tools like autotune that instrumental based music will eventually go the way of the dinosaur?

Comment #84: exholt  on  05/13  at  06:28 PM

On the topic of Boomer narratives. When I (Gen X) was a teenager one of my Boomer aunts was always getting on my case for not behaving like a proper teenager. I didn’t like to go to rock concerts, I didn’t wear crazy clothes, fight all the time with my parents, or want to dye my hair green. It didn’t matter that I was voraciously consuming all sorts of books, learning languages, and dreaming of trips to far-away places which I did actually run off to when I was in college. I’ve wound up doing a hell of a lot of stuff for someone who grew up in a rural working class family, but I don’t think my aunt ever appreciated any of that. She never came out and said it, but I do believe that she thought I was a hopelessly boring person because I never rebelled. It didn’t matter that I was very much doing “my own thing” - I wasn’t doing the right “my own things” from her Boomer perspective, so they didn’t really count.

Comment #85: TomWinter  on  05/13  at  06:34 PM

Interesting thing—my dad didn’t believe young people would be watching Dancing With the Stars, because ballroom dance was fading as he reached adulthood. But that’s where I found out what Lady Gaga looks like, instead of just hearing her on the radio. There’s just not the culture gaps people think there are. My generation did Swing Revival, the music of our grandparent’s era.

Appropriations are part of <s>modern</s> culture. J-pop and Bollywood reflect a lot of American and British pop music styles, and Americans make their animations look more like anime and put Indian religious dance moves into ballet numbers. In California, California Cuisine and Pacific Rim are both food styles creating by fusing aspects from multiple cultures. Clothing fashions have been about borrowing from other cultures and past generations since probably forever.
Come to think of it (and why I struck out the modern), appropriation is pretty much how human culture develops.

Comment #86: Samantha Vimes  on  05/13  at  06:36 PM

I am realizing my second paragraph is all cross-cultural rather than cross-generational. So: 50s and 80s clothing went to Victorian times for inspirations. 80s took from 40s, too, and the swing influence started then—if you listen carefully, you’ll find boogie-woogie piano solos and brass jazz bits thrown in pop/rock songs by Billy Idol or Billy Joel, for example. 60s & 70s fashion seems to me to owe a fair amount to the 1920s, when slim boyish figures were the range, waistlines were low, skirts were short, and pantsuits first were really an option. “Peasant blouses”—there’s a trend that keeps cropping up, based on very old styles!
Children still watch “Lady and the Tramp”, “Sleeping Beauty”, and “Aristocats”. The 3 Stooges are still part of D00d culture.
In short, Andy Rooney is a moron who knows much less than he thinks he does. smile

Comment #87: Samantha Vimes  on  05/13  at  06:50 PM

I get my musical tastes from my dad who worked with classical musicians while listening to rock radio. My mom however was into the cheesiest 70s easy listening when I was a child and worked her way backwards with each decade to the blandest big band music.

Comment #88: CBrachyrhynchos  on  05/13  at  07:24 PM

The myth of boomer rebellion is highly exaggerated from what I can tell. While there was an unprecedented youth rebellion, it’s vanguard was only a small fraction of the total population. Most of them grew up, got jobs, got married, had kids, and maybe took a step to the left or the right. If called for the draft, most went.

Comment #89: CBrachyrhynchos  on  05/13  at  07:48 PM

I actually think Rooney has a point. And he is recycling this material—he said it when Kurt Cobain and John Lennon died, he said it in his piece on Michael Jackson’s “Bad” (which, by the way, was a classic—he read Jackson’s stupid lyrics aloud).

But recycled or no, the reality is that even though one can talk bout influences and a musical continuum, from Big Joe Turner to Ike Turner to Elvis to the Beatles to the Stones all the way through Green Day, or from Muddy Waters to BB King to Marvin Gaye to Isaac Hayes to Grandmaster Flash to Run DMC to Jay-Z, the combination of electric instrumentation, technology, dissonance, and the deemphasis of the separation between professional singing and professional songwriting has definitely made modern music unrecognizable to someone born in Rooney’s time.

That doesn’t, of course, make modern music bad (although Michael Jackson’s “Bad” was, in fact, bad). But it’s much easier for someone steeped in the modern idioms to go back and listen to what came before than for someone who grew up at a time when mainstream was Glenn Miller and Harry James and arty and edgy was Coleman Hawkins and Billie Holiday to understand what is put out now. It just doesn’t make sense, any more than Arnold Schoenberg would have made sense to someone from Mozart’s time.

Our understandings and expectations of music are formed in our youth, when we listen to a lot of it. When we are all Rooney’s age, it is quite likely that most of us are going to be just like Rooney is now when it comes to whatever young people will be listening to then.

Comment #90: Dilan Esper  on  05/13  at  08:12 PM

Yes, this, exactly.  Last year and the year before, when I was still in college, I hosted a couple of Motown-themed dance parties, and they were always wildly popular.  And when other people had dance parties, it wasn’t uncommon for them to play, say, Little Eva in between hip-hop songs.

Comment #91: thewhatfor  on  05/13  at  10:43 PM

I’ve always been under the impression that Andy Rooney was already in his mid fifties when he came out of the womb. There’s no way anybody gets that good at being a grumpy old man without at least 70+ years of solid and uninterrupted practice.

Comment #92: Dan2108  on  05/14  at  02:32 AM

I have to agree with those who are saying inter-generational conflict isn’t unique to the 60’s. the 20’s were just as strong a cultural revolution. sure, women in the 60’s went bra-less; but women in the 20’s went corset-less!!!eleventyone!

Conflict between generations is the narrative of a lot of the 20th century, and it’s actually only recent generations that have partially abandoned this. Gen X’ers and the Net-Generation seem to have a strong and open connection to the culture of before-you-were-born, because there wasn’t much of anything to rebel against, as a group. Individual teens individually rejected their individual parents, as all teens do when they learn to be themselves, but the cultura as a whole no longer “broke with the past”, but rather copied it maniacally.

I wore my mom’s teen clothes to High-school, for example, but I still fought with her and thought she and her ideas where fucking stupid. And then I moved out and changed my mind :-p

Comment #93: jadehawk  on  05/14  at  10:19 PM

sure, women in the 60’s went bra-less; but women in the 20’s went corset-less!!!eleventyone!

jadehawk, how many of those women in the 20’s who went corsetless were identifiable as such by a casual observer while they walked on city streets?

Comment #94: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/15  at  01:01 PM

jadehawk, how many of those women in the 20’s who went corsetless were identifiable as such by a casual observer while they walked on city streets?

uh… have you seen a flapper dress? can’t hide a corset under that.

Comment #95: jadehawk  on  05/15  at  06:17 PM

uh… have you seen a flapper dress? can’t hide a corset under that.


Very true, except ‘a flapper dress’ was popular before the 1920s and corsets perhaps became a victim of fashion, along with the ‘wasp-waisted’ look that was in favor earlier becoming a thing of the past.

Plus, the sexual mores had changed very little between then and the 1950s. “Flapper” women and their younger sisters, like Granmother Monk,  weren’t in favor of their own daughters having any sort of sexual freedom, at least amongst those daughters my mother went to school with at a Catholic High School in San Jose, CA.  Mom said that half the class got married after graduation because that was the only way they could find out what sex was like.  She wasn’t one of them, but she did ‘wait until marriage’, which came after a 6 week courtship, somewhat uncommon then and now.  wink

I would cite the 1920s for women being able to smoke in public, that was such a long-held taboo that in 1973 Texas my cousins’ husband was scared of Mother Avenger because she smoked in public, and therefor was a woman to be feared, nowadays, a working-class woman who smokes is as unremarkable as long hair in a ponytail on a man over 50. grin

Comment #96: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  05/15  at  07:21 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.