I wouldn't argue too much about this. My point is if you turned 40 in 1966, you could remember when rock and roll didn't really exist. This might have even been kind of true for a 30 year old, but there was proto-rock coursing around by the 40s. Rock doesn't chart, though, until the early 50s.
My 12 year old granddaughter tells me that neither she nor any of her friends have any interest in Taylor Swift. Whether that is a clue to the new direction or just Brooklyn contrariness I do not know.
ross, i don't know if you read your old posts, but your beatles comments are too general. they weren't "ruffians." they were lower middle class and working class, not gang members, an important distinction. george harrison wrote "taxman," in 65/6 for the revolver album. a year later, after his conversion to a sort of hinduism he wrote "with you, without you," for sgt. pepper. his view had changed significantly. john lennon was the only overtly political one (paul was a universalist, liking all, but his songs were not about that). imagine, power to the people and give peace a chance all came post-beatles. ringo didn't care at all.
Ruffian can denote working class. Ringo was actually poor, the others a bit better off. They were all Teddy Boy types in Hamburg, fights and copious sex and leather jackets ... they weren't prim and proper at all
If anyone would like to break free of the Spotify algorithm personally, orpheus.network is accepting new member applications...there's a bit to study up on, but not too much, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. (And if you're a narc, buzz off!)
Like Taylor Swift or not, comparing her to the Beatles is deeply weird. Beatlemania was nearly 60 years ago. The music landscape now resembles that of 1964 about as much as 1964 did to 1904, which is not at all. You could argue that the Beatles didn’t play Tin Pan Alley or sell their sheet music for people to play at home.
The popular music landscape has changed dramatically in the 60 years since the Beatles took the US by storm. Even then the Beatles were remarkable for tapping into a new moment in popular culture, where middle class wealth and the Baby Boom generation enabled teenage tastes as separate from their parents, a new concept entirely.
In 2023 the popular music landscape is both fragmented and crowded. The year TS is having is particularly unusual in this landscape, and to achieve it partly by reissuing old songs (and having them chart) is what’s notable. She is taking music industry truths and norms and upending them at will. Love or hate her music, other artists are taking diligent notes.
It’s possible (maybe even probable) that she is achieving this because her public image is both ubiquitous and carefully curated, a lesson she learned through the Kim and Kanye trials. Isn’t that worthy of dissection?
It's not "deeply weird." I can compare her to anyone - Britney Spears? - but she's at a level of cultural dominance I'd argue that's only been matched by the Beatles. Kanye, Katy Perry, or anyone in the last few decades never undertook a tour like this one, and never saturated the culture to such a degree. Bonus points for Taylor because the fragmented landscape makes that harder than ever.
Very persuasive, but it should be noted that Swift made rather a big deal of breaking her "apolitical" image to criticize Marsha Blackburn's Senate campaign (covered in the Miss Americana movie) and that the Beatles refused to play segregated venues on their first US tour.
Great article and a very good point. USA Today got tons of attention by dedicating a reporter to Taylor Swift, and obviously they did so as a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy, but how can they possibly monetize it? Unless this guy gets some sort of insanely privileged access I can’t see it.
Gushing reporting can be found literally everywhere else. Nobody will subscribe for more of that. Negative or unbiased reporting? Honestly I’m not sure who wants that either. I know nothing about Taylor Swift -can’t name a song off the top of my head. But it’s not like I’m MAD at her, or resent what she represents, or have any opinion of her at all. I’m not on the prowl for somebody to “tell it like it is”.
I just read the NYT Sgt. Pepper review. I actually thought it was pretty great. I’m a huge Beatles fan, and of course I like that album, but I like pretty much all their albums from Rubber Soul on better.
Because a 20-year-old in 1966 just plain doesn't have working memory of a time when popular rock and roll didn't exist. You think he or she had an adult understanding of the pre-rock cultural America of, like, 1958 when they were 12? And that was already a year after, for example, "All Shook Up" and "Jailhouse Rock" came out. A 20-year-old in 1966 absolutely did not have working memory of a pre-Elvis America; *maybe* a 30-year-old would but that's still assigning a lot of cultural understanding and awareness to that person's teenage years.
I absolutely have a working memory of what the music landscape of the country was like from at least age 7 onwards. People then were no different. He said "working memory" not "adult understanding." That is quite an attempted goalpost move though.
No, I'm sorry but you most certainly do not. In hindsight, between a few vague, generic memories combined with an adult knowledge of what culture was like when you were 7, you can look back and pretend you knew it all at that age.
Edit: being aware of specific music, and having a working memory of what music culture was like generally, are two very different things.
What a ludicrous assertion, with some more goalpost moving. Having a working memory in no way implies I claim I "knew it all at that age."
Having "a working memory of a time when popular rock and roll effectively did not exist" requires only remembering what was on the radio as a ten year old, which is a low bar that almost everyone can meet. Perhaps you can't, but I assure you that you are unusual in that respect.
I think I'd really love if a major publication had a "BTS beat." I broadly understand the industry players and cultural waves T-Swizzle has rode to success; the machinations behind K-pop are by comparison pretty obscure to your average Westerner, and a savvy reporter could easily use BTS as a pop hook upon which to hang actual foreign policy reporting. (I was fascinated to hear that the South Korean government literally made a carveout so that boy bands can postpone their mandatory military service, for instance!)
I wouldn't argue too much about this. My point is if you turned 40 in 1966, you could remember when rock and roll didn't really exist. This might have even been kind of true for a 30 year old, but there was proto-rock coursing around by the 40s. Rock doesn't chart, though, until the early 50s.
Another great article, thanks
My 12 year old granddaughter tells me that neither she nor any of her friends have any interest in Taylor Swift. Whether that is a clue to the new direction or just Brooklyn contrariness I do not know.
ross, i don't know if you read your old posts, but your beatles comments are too general. they weren't "ruffians." they were lower middle class and working class, not gang members, an important distinction. george harrison wrote "taxman," in 65/6 for the revolver album. a year later, after his conversion to a sort of hinduism he wrote "with you, without you," for sgt. pepper. his view had changed significantly. john lennon was the only overtly political one (paul was a universalist, liking all, but his songs were not about that). imagine, power to the people and give peace a chance all came post-beatles. ringo didn't care at all.
Ruffian can denote working class. Ringo was actually poor, the others a bit better off. They were all Teddy Boy types in Hamburg, fights and copious sex and leather jackets ... they weren't prim and proper at all
If anyone would like to break free of the Spotify algorithm personally, orpheus.network is accepting new member applications...there's a bit to study up on, but not too much, and if you have any questions, feel free to ask. (And if you're a narc, buzz off!)
Like Taylor Swift or not, comparing her to the Beatles is deeply weird. Beatlemania was nearly 60 years ago. The music landscape now resembles that of 1964 about as much as 1964 did to 1904, which is not at all. You could argue that the Beatles didn’t play Tin Pan Alley or sell their sheet music for people to play at home.
The popular music landscape has changed dramatically in the 60 years since the Beatles took the US by storm. Even then the Beatles were remarkable for tapping into a new moment in popular culture, where middle class wealth and the Baby Boom generation enabled teenage tastes as separate from their parents, a new concept entirely.
In 2023 the popular music landscape is both fragmented and crowded. The year TS is having is particularly unusual in this landscape, and to achieve it partly by reissuing old songs (and having them chart) is what’s notable. She is taking music industry truths and norms and upending them at will. Love or hate her music, other artists are taking diligent notes.
It’s possible (maybe even probable) that she is achieving this because her public image is both ubiquitous and carefully curated, a lesson she learned through the Kim and Kanye trials. Isn’t that worthy of dissection?
It's not "deeply weird." I can compare her to anyone - Britney Spears? - but she's at a level of cultural dominance I'd argue that's only been matched by the Beatles. Kanye, Katy Perry, or anyone in the last few decades never undertook a tour like this one, and never saturated the culture to such a degree. Bonus points for Taylor because the fragmented landscape makes that harder than ever.
Very persuasive, but it should be noted that Swift made rather a big deal of breaking her "apolitical" image to criticize Marsha Blackburn's Senate campaign (covered in the Miss Americana movie) and that the Beatles refused to play segregated venues on their first US tour.
one is noted and the Blackburn is linked to!
Thank you, I need to work on my reading skills!
Great article and a very good point. USA Today got tons of attention by dedicating a reporter to Taylor Swift, and obviously they did so as a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy, but how can they possibly monetize it? Unless this guy gets some sort of insanely privileged access I can’t see it.
Gushing reporting can be found literally everywhere else. Nobody will subscribe for more of that. Negative or unbiased reporting? Honestly I’m not sure who wants that either. I know nothing about Taylor Swift -can’t name a song off the top of my head. But it’s not like I’m MAD at her, or resent what she represents, or have any opinion of her at all. I’m not on the prowl for somebody to “tell it like it is”.
I just read the NYT Sgt. Pepper review. I actually thought it was pretty great. I’m a huge Beatles fan, and of course I like that album, but I like pretty much all their albums from Rubber Soul on better.
"If you turned forty in 1966, you had a working memory of a time when popular rock and roll effectively did not exist."
20 is more like it. The first rock and roll didn't chart until the early-mid 50s.
Sure, but I think the idea is that people in their 20s don't *really* have much operational working memory beyond the now anyway.
That may be but I don't see how it explains why Ross wrote 40 when 20 is the real cut off in 1966.
Because a 20-year-old in 1966 just plain doesn't have working memory of a time when popular rock and roll didn't exist. You think he or she had an adult understanding of the pre-rock cultural America of, like, 1958 when they were 12? And that was already a year after, for example, "All Shook Up" and "Jailhouse Rock" came out. A 20-year-old in 1966 absolutely did not have working memory of a pre-Elvis America; *maybe* a 30-year-old would but that's still assigning a lot of cultural understanding and awareness to that person's teenage years.
I absolutely have a working memory of what the music landscape of the country was like from at least age 7 onwards. People then were no different. He said "working memory" not "adult understanding." That is quite an attempted goalpost move though.
No, I'm sorry but you most certainly do not. In hindsight, between a few vague, generic memories combined with an adult knowledge of what culture was like when you were 7, you can look back and pretend you knew it all at that age.
Edit: being aware of specific music, and having a working memory of what music culture was like generally, are two very different things.
What a ludicrous assertion, with some more goalpost moving. Having a working memory in no way implies I claim I "knew it all at that age."
Having "a working memory of a time when popular rock and roll effectively did not exist" requires only remembering what was on the radio as a ten year old, which is a low bar that almost everyone can meet. Perhaps you can't, but I assure you that you are unusual in that respect.
I think I'd really love if a major publication had a "BTS beat." I broadly understand the industry players and cultural waves T-Swizzle has rode to success; the machinations behind K-pop are by comparison pretty obscure to your average Westerner, and a savvy reporter could easily use BTS as a pop hook upon which to hang actual foreign policy reporting. (I was fascinated to hear that the South Korean government literally made a carveout so that boy bands can postpone their mandatory military service, for instance!)