--- Sez Justin Nicholson to All ---
 JN> What was the rock like back than was it beeter than the 90's?
Yes, the rock music of my adolescence was better than the 90's.
On the other hand, there is a lot MORE music around today, it's
just that the most popular stuff isn't very good, and the best
stuff isn't very popular.
It's been said that the 60's were one of the rare occasions that
the best/most innovative/most artistic music was the most popular.
This is not strictly true, of course, (a lot of horrible stuff
was very popular and some very good music has remained totally
obscure) and maybe it wasn't true in the 30's either, but it seems
unlikely it'll ever be that true again.  People who know lots
more than I do have commented on the fragmentation of the music
and the audience since the 60's.  Kenneth probably has a master's
thesis on the subject...
But anyway, The music of most peoples' adolescence is better than
the music of their 30's and 40's.  This seems natural even if it
sounds patronizing.  Not only do you have more time to listen
to it, you've hopefully got a peer group to listen to it with
and you're part of a big target demographic that everybody
wants to sell music to.  I suppose it's sort of cute when some
of today's teens become big fans of bands that broke up before
they were born (e.g. the Beatles), but in another way it's a
little sad.  Not that I would argue against appreciating music
for its own sake regardless of when it was recorded or by whom
or what the singer told an interviewer about Salman Rushie or
whatever...  It just smacks a bit too much of sucking up to the
older generation.  It hasn't been very rebellious to be a Paul
McCartney fan since at least 1965, but I guess points for
nonconformist tendencies are at least possible, especially if
such fandom leads to discoveries other than the 20 to 30 year
old top 40 songs still in continuous rotation across America...
Dave
... Circular Definition: see Definition, Circular.
---
---------------