2 ms·

Sounds like a case of survivorship bias. For every Floyd and Hendrix, there are probably dozens of then contemporary pop artists who never made it out of the 60

by nnfy 9y ago

Sounds like a case of survivorship bias. For every Floyd and Hendrix, there are probably dozens of then contemporary pop artists who never made it out of the 60s.

coldtea 9y ago
The issue is that there were Floyd and Hendrix then, but not now. So the survivorship bias is not applicable in this case as nobody said there wasn't junk then. (And actually what the parent talks about goes beyond Floyd and Hendrix, which are not counter-culturish or high culture themselves anyway(.
- lifeformed 9y ago
  There exists equivalent artists today, but they are in new styles that may not suit the tastes of someone who grew up listening to 60's music and hasn't kept up with the evolution of music over the years. Just like in the 60's, there's a lot of mainstream music now that will be considered foundational to cultural trends 50 years from now. However, they will be unappealing to people idolizing the music of 50 years past. They may not think much of modern hip hop or electronic music, or things like Radiohead or Kanye West, but those things will be regarded the same way we regard legends of decades past.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Just like in the 60's, there's a lot of mainstream music now that will be considered foundational to cultural trends 50 years from now. However, they will be unappealing to people idolizing the music of 50 years past. They may not think much of modern hip hop or electronic music, or things like Radiohead or Kanye West, but those things will be regarded the same way we regard legends of decades past. I don't think so, because the whole cultural role of music has changed. Not just sales, interest has plummeted, and young people have tons of over outlets besides music (tons of movies just for them, video games, the internet, social media, mobile apps, netflix soon vr and other stuff). Music had more power when it was something everybody was tuned in at the same time (through radio, top-40 etc which was inescapable), was seen as subversive (now tech founders might be even more admired than the latest rock star), was expensive and had to be listened to in small doses and from start to end, was opaque and all kinds of myths surrounded it (without 24/7 media coverage and 200+ direct artist-to-fan outlets available), and more especially was one of a limited number of entertainment options.
    - lifeformed 9y ago
      It's true that the cultural role of music has changed a lot; that's important to bring up. However, I view it more as an evolution rather than a decline. The same way that paperback books "cheapened" the old experience of reading, or record players "cheapened" the live interactive experience of music. Things just became different, and it resulted in new cultural elements. I think it's the same thing that happens with anything that you make more popular, easier to get, and cheaper. You'll get way more people who only engage with it superficially and maybe even detrimentally, but you'll also reach way more people that will appreciate it as much as ever, and help expand it into something greater.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
There were many psychedelic rock bands active around 1967 which never made the charts, but which have been rediscovered and are highly regarded today: Kaleidoscope/Fairfield Parlour, July, Tintern Abbey, The Peep Show, Axe, The Factory, and numerous others from the UK and other countries. So even though there was plenty of music from then which does deserve to be forgotten, there was also plenty of music from then which was nearly forgotten but deserves to be remembered.

by nnfy 9y ago

Sounds like a case of survivorship bias. For every Floyd and Hendrix, there are probably dozens of then contemporary pop artists who never made it out of the 60s.

coldtea 9y ago

The issue is that there were Floyd and Hendrix then, but not now. So the survivorship bias is not applicable in this case as nobody said there wasn't junk then. (And actually what the parent talks about goes beyond Floyd and Hendrix, which are not counter-culturish or high culture themselves anyway(.

lifeformed 9y ago
There exists equivalent artists today, but they are in new styles that may not suit the tastes of someone who grew up listening to 60's music and hasn't kept up with the evolution of music over the years. Just like in the 60's, there's a lot of mainstream music now that will be considered foundational to cultural trends 50 years from now. However, they will be unappealing to people idolizing the music of 50 years past. They may not think much of modern hip hop or electronic music, or things like Radiohead or Kanye West, but those things will be regarded the same way we regard legends of decades past.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Just like in the 60's, there's a lot of mainstream music now that will be considered foundational to cultural trends 50 years from now. However, they will be unappealing to people idolizing the music of 50 years past. They may not think much of modern hip hop or electronic music, or things like Radiohead or Kanye West, but those things will be regarded the same way we regard legends of decades past. I don't think so, because the whole cultural role of music has changed. Not just sales, interest has plummeted, and young people have tons of over outlets besides music (tons of movies just for them, video games, the internet, social media, mobile apps, netflix soon vr and other stuff). Music had more power when it was something everybody was tuned in at the same time (through radio, top-40 etc which was inescapable), was seen as subversive (now tech founders might be even more admired than the latest rock star), was expensive and had to be listened to in small doses and from start to end, was opaque and all kinds of myths surrounded it (without 24/7 media coverage and 200+ direct artist-to-fan outlets available), and more especially was one of a limited number of entertainment options.
  - lifeformed 9y ago
    It's true that the cultural role of music has changed a lot; that's important to bring up. However, I view it more as an evolution rather than a decline. The same way that paperback books "cheapened" the old experience of reading, or record players "cheapened" the live interactive experience of music. Things just became different, and it resulted in new cultural elements. I think it's the same thing that happens with anything that you make more popular, easier to get, and cheaper. You'll get way more people who only engage with it superficially and maybe even detrimentally, but you'll also reach way more people that will appreciate it as much as ever, and help expand it into something greater.

DonaldFisk 9y ago

There were many psychedelic rock bands active around 1967 which never made the charts, but which have been rediscovered and are highly regarded today: Kaleidoscope/Fairfield Parlour, July, Tintern Abbey, The Peep Show, Axe, The Factory, and numerous others from the UK and other countries. So even though there was plenty of music from then which does deserve to be forgotten, there was also plenty of music from then which was nearly forgotten but deserves to be remembered.