Is popular music always destined to be ephemoral?

Posted by: Nime on 13 May 2004

Hi

In discussion with a younger family member I was placed firmly in the "sad" department by a scathing attack on my choice of music. Smile

"The Eagles?" She said. "I bet you like Supertramp too! Jethro Tull, Dire Straits, Mike Oldfield?" The list certainly summed up my age and my usual "middle of the road" tastes. I like clever or thoughtful lyrics, competence on their chosen instruments etc... Big Grin

Later I wondered about this apparently thoughtless dismissal of earlier "works" and performers.

Technology has left some popular earlier media behind. Sheet music, 78s & 45rpm have all taken their toll on easy accessibility of earlier popular music.

But tastes change constantly. Even the mega-popular pop star can lose their popularity overnight.

Is popular music always destined to fade like the old newspaper in the sunlight? Is it so disposable? Unworthy of any lasting interest? No matter how popular at the time or however "worthy"?

Nime
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by Bubblechild
IMHO pop's just a form like any other. It can be invested with as much or as little emotion/truth/beauty as the artist has in them, and for me those are the things that make a piece of music stand the test of time.

Of course the typical pop song structure is vastly shorter and less complex than, say, a symphony - or even a sonata - but that hasn't stopped me getting great pleasure from pop music over the years, albeit a different kind of pleasure.

What are the reasons for much of pop 'fading'? Pop often deals with contemporary issues and preoccupations, which may seem less relevant as time goes by - but then much classical music has done the same. Pop is often written by the relatively young for the even younger: perhaps as we all grow up our priorities and interests shift and there is no longer the same gap that we used to need pop to fill.

And of course the last hundred and fifty years have seen huge changes in the technology of music creation and recording. This has affected the 'sound' of popular music as much or more than its structure. I wonder how much classical music would sound dated if it were not for the relative consistency in orchestral instrumentation of the previous few hundred years.

But I guess at the end of the day it's just that most music that's written - irrespective of its form - will not stand up over a long period. Looking back at the 1970s it seems like a wonderful era for music to me. But that's because I'm only taking the best of the decade into account. There is much, much more that didn't survive and has been largely forgotten. I'm sure the same applies to a great number of works from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or whenever. Great works of art are actually pretty few and far between.

Bubble

PS - I love Supertramp! Not too sure about Dire Straits tho...
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by Peter C
Some pop music is relevant to the time it was recorded and doesn't age well.

Some of the Pop Music in the sixties and seventies was dire, but the better quality tunes have lasted and are popular for dancing too, whatever your age.

Teenagers like to have their own identity and music is part of that identity. Music relevant to their parents youth is seen as old fashioned.

There is also the shock value in youth culture, Teenagers like to make their mark by shocking their parents. music is one way of doing that.

As a teenager I couldn't relate to Gilbert & sullivan or Opera, which my mother liked. They were boring to me. My opinion has changed and I like Gilbert and Sullivan Operettas and Mozart Operas.

Ironically I liked Jazz, which my Dad preferred and it helped because he was also open minded re pop. He liked Status and Slade like me in the seventies.

I have liked Classical Music from my teens, especially Mozart's last 4 symphonies and Beethoven's 6th Symphony.
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by greeny
quote:
The Eagles?" She said. "I bet you like Supertramp too! Jethro Tull, Dire Straits, Mike Oldfield?"


Thye fact that she even knows these names and presumably has heard some of their music proves what a success they were/are. There are still plenty of bands emerging today who site the great 60s and 70s bands as major influences.

quote:
But tastes change constantly. Even the mega-popular pop star can lose their popularity overnight.

Is popular music always destined to fade like the old newspaper in the sunlight? Is it so disposable? Unworthy of any lasting interest? No matter how popular at the time or however "worthy"?



Of course popular music is almost by definition liable to be subject to the huge swings of fashion and taste. But the best stuff is never far from some retro revial or other.
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by Rasher
This is pretty telling I think:
This is no.1 singles through 1966, and just check out these songs. Do you think you will remember any of them? Check them against today's singles chart for quality.
1966
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by BigH47
More than 50% of those listed are still regularly played on various stations. Be intersting to see if the same applies in 2038 abouts 2004's output.As to remembering 1966's issue I can remember almost all of them.
Howard Big Grin
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by Rasher
I was 6 in 1966, and I know all of them apart from 3!! I bet I would know them too if I heard them.
Amazing.
Know any of these??
Me neither.
I'm sounding like an old gimmer...sorry
Posted on: 13 May 2004 by Geoff P
I have to admit that I remember all except one of the 1966 list.

But then I also remember ALL of these! I even owned some of them on 78's.

still listening to music planning to "not fade away"

GEOFF
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by greeny
A slight sidetrack

From the 1966 list does anyone remember:

27 January Michelle Overlanders

Is this a cover of the Beatles song??

It's just this was number one when I was born and if it's not the Beatles track I don't think I know it.
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by Shayman
'67 weren't too forgettable either
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by DenisA
Greeny,

It was the Beatles track
Hereand I don't remember this version either.

Just in case you wanted to discover The Overlanders catalog, look Here

Denis
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by DenisA
Rasher,

The number 1's site you have listed serves Two purposes I think. The First thing, it's a great source for Party Music compilations; assuming people will dance Smile. The Second is a History Lesson of Society reflected by changes in Popular Music and Fashion (remembering TOTP's).

From 1966 onwards, what would say were YOUR best/worst No.1 years?

Also, what was the year that those 2 (Dutch?) blokes got to No.1 and mimed their song (someone else actually recorded it)?

Rgds Denis
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by JohanR
quote:
'67 weren't too forgettable either


Somewhere else I have read that the best selling single in Britain 1967 was "Release Me" with E Humperdinck. The next best selling was with Humperdinck to.
In one of the best pop music years ever...

Well, at least I can get comfort from knowing that it was the girls in my class who liked him. We, the more educated and culturally inclined boys was listening to Jimi Hendrix and Byrds (actually my big brother was, but as he had control over the familys real to real recorder, I listened to what he listened to. I was 9).

JohanR
Posted on: 14 May 2004 by JohanR
quote:
From 1966 onwards, what would say were YOUR best/worst No.1 years?


Probably 1969 as best. Of the songs I recognise (nearly everyone), there is no bad one.

2000 worst, as it was the year when Madonna destroyed 'American Pie'.

JohanR
Posted on: 15 May 2004 by Bubblechild
American Pie

Agreed. An entirely pointless cover. And I often like Madonna.

Bring back Don, with his Castles in the Air, Buidling My Body, Dreidel, And I Love You So...sweet.