Comments on: Music Was Better in the Sixties, Man http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/ Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:44:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Phillip Helbig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77526 Phillip Helbig Thu, 13 Sep 2012 21:01:26 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77526 <I>"I thought I remember reading something about how they burned 100s of thousands of Beatles albums because John Lennon made the joke that they were received by fans as if they were Jesus; that gives you a marker for how up tight the culture was back then. "</I> Maybe thousands but not hundreds of thousands. Very garbled. First, it wasn't a joke. Second, it was misunderstood. He said something like (the exact quote is easy enough to find): "Christianity will go; it will vanish and fade. We are more popular than Jesus now." Read it like "WE are more popular than Jesus now", i.e. "Even we humble Beatles are more popular than Jesus now". In other words, he wasn't assuming Jesus is popular and hence if the Beatles are more popular then they must be really popular, but rather assuming that the Beatles weren't that popular and hence Jesus was even less popular. One still might disagree, but this is a prime example of a quote taken out of context. As Lennon later clarified, had he said "television is more popular than Jesus now", then there would have been less outrage. Also, he was referring to England, not the US, where Jesus is still more popular than the Beatles. Also, as he also clarified, it was merely a statement of fact, not saying the Beatles were better than Jesus or comparing the Beatles to God as a thing or whatever. “I thought I remember reading something about how they burned 100s of thousands of Beatles albums because John Lennon made the joke that they were received by fans as if they were Jesus; that gives you a marker for how up tight the culture was back then. “

Maybe thousands but not hundreds of thousands.

Very garbled. First, it wasn’t a joke. Second, it was misunderstood. He said something like (the exact quote is easy enough to find): “Christianity will go; it will vanish and fade. We are more popular than Jesus now.” Read it like “WE are more popular than Jesus now”, i.e. “Even we humble Beatles are more popular than Jesus now”. In other words, he wasn’t assuming Jesus is popular and hence if the Beatles are more popular then they must be really popular, but rather assuming that the Beatles weren’t that popular and hence Jesus was even less popular. One still might disagree, but this is a prime example of a quote taken out of context. As Lennon later clarified, had he said “television is more popular than Jesus now”, then there would have been less outrage. Also, he was referring to England, not the US, where Jesus is still more popular than the Beatles. Also, as he also clarified, it was merely a statement of fact, not saying the Beatles were better than Jesus or comparing the Beatles to God as a thing or whatever.

]]> By: Phillip Helbig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77525 Phillip Helbig Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:25:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77525 <I>"And I’ve gotta say, Ravi Shankar’s daughter is #1 on my top five, never gonna happen, famous women I would cheat on my wife with list."</I> Which one of his daughters? How about both? “And I’ve gotta say, Ravi Shankar’s daughter is #1 on my top five, never gonna happen, famous women I would cheat on my wife with list.”

Which one of his daughters? How about both?

]]> By: Brett http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77524 Brett Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:48:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77524 Your right Phillip @ #39, but those first three aspects of the Beatles didn't really start to bloom until the late 60s when they started taking trips beyond the cosmos with Ravi Shankar and Tim Leary. And I've gotta say, Ravi Shankar's daughter is #1 on my top five, never gonna happen, famous women I would cheat on my wife with list. Back to the Beatles though, it may seem like they weren't the overproduced boy band of the day, but relative to the production methods of the day, they were. I thought I remember reading something about how they burned 100s of thousands of Beatles albums because John Lennon made the joke that they were received by fans as if they were Jesus; that gives you a marker for how up tight the culture was back then. And I still stand by it despite how upset you are, every kid wanted be Jimmy Page because they probably could have just picked up a guitar without any experience, walked right on stage, and filled in for him without anyone noticing. The only good fully British guitar based bands I can think of are: Queen (my personal pick for the best rock band now-past), or The Darkness... Or Wyld Stallions feat. the Grimm Reaper and Station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cEdqWZi13I :D Your right Phillip @ #39, but those first three aspects of the Beatles didn’t really start to bloom until the late 60s when they started taking trips beyond the cosmos with Ravi Shankar and Tim Leary. And I’ve gotta say, Ravi Shankar’s daughter is #1 on my top five, never gonna happen, famous women I would cheat on my wife with list. Back to the Beatles though, it may seem like they weren’t the overproduced boy band of the day, but relative to the production methods of the day, they were. I thought I remember reading something about how they burned 100s of thousands of Beatles albums because John Lennon made the joke that they were received by fans as if they were Jesus; that gives you a marker for how up tight the culture was back then.

And I still stand by it despite how upset you are, every kid wanted be Jimmy Page because they probably could have just picked up a guitar without any experience, walked right on stage, and filled in for him without anyone noticing. The only good fully British guitar based bands I can think of are: Queen (my personal pick for the best rock band now-past), or The Darkness… Or Wyld Stallions feat. the Grimm Reaper and Station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cEdqWZi13I :D

]]> By: don't kill the messenger http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77523 don't kill the messenger Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:46:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77523 "Jimmy Page play guitar for Led Zeppelin; it’s the crappiest, out of tune, off beat, butterfingers guitar I’ve ever heard. And I might add, the Beatles were the N’ Sync, New Kids on the Block, of the early 60s. " You, sir, are a moron. “Jimmy Page play guitar for Led Zeppelin; it’s the crappiest, out of tune, off beat, butterfingers guitar I’ve ever heard. And I might add, the Beatles were the N’ Sync, New Kids on the Block, of the early 60s. ”

You, sir, are a moron.

]]> By: Scientific evidence - music's getting dumber - Religious Education Forum http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77522 Scientific evidence - music's getting dumber - Religious Education Forum Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:24:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77522 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Phillip Helbig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77521 Phillip Helbig Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:09:21 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77521 <I>"And I might add, the Beatles were the N’ Sync, New Kids on the Block, of the early 60s. "</I> In the sense of impact on young girls, in some sense, yes, though the impact of the Beatles was much stronger. But the Beatles a) produced good music, b) were hugely influential and c) were very innovative. Actually, there are six orthogonal axes: the 4 mentioned above and 5) innovative or not and 6) influential or not. If we take the extremes, that makes 64 combinations. Watch all 6 parts (this is part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zddh5Vp-ApI) and come back. :-) “And I might add, the Beatles were the N’ Sync, New Kids on the Block, of the early 60s. “

In the sense of impact on young girls, in some sense, yes, though the impact of the Beatles was much stronger. But the Beatles a) produced good music, b) were hugely influential and c) were very innovative.

Actually, there are six orthogonal axes: the 4 mentioned above and 5) innovative or not and 6) influential or not. If we take the extremes, that makes 64 combinations.

Watch all 6 parts (this is part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zddh5Vp-ApI) and come back. :-)

]]> By: Phillip Helbig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77520 Phillip Helbig Mon, 06 Aug 2012 22:01:49 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77520 <I>"Shouldn’t the graph go up to 11?"</I> Indeed. What a huge missed opportunity for an in-joke (if, indeed, the authors are in). With regard to Brett @ #15, I'm not sure whether he realized he made a <i><b>brilliant</b></i> in-joke. None more black. “Shouldn’t the graph go up to 11?”

Indeed. What a huge missed opportunity for an in-joke (if, indeed, the authors are in). With regard to Brett @ #15, I’m not sure whether he realized he made a brilliant in-joke. None more black.

]]> By: Phillip Helbig http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77519 Phillip Helbig Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:56:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77519 Of course, what is good is a matter of taste. One can of course introduce objective criteria such as novelty, but as Cage, Stockhausen, Schönberg etc showed, one can have novelty without quality. Certainly there is good (but relatively unpopular) music being made now, and there was a lot of low-quality music 40 years ago. Can one say anything at all objective about quality? Good or bad, popular or unpopular, "classical" or "pop", difficult or easy to play: these 4 axes are orthogonal. Is there anything meaningful in the title of this post? I think one can claim the following: What was popular 40 years ago is more diverse than what is popular now. People were more willing then to listen to types of music which were new to them. Music changed more rapidly. (Even if I don't know the tune, I can hear if something is 1965 or 1970. Can one hear such a difference between, say, 1992 and 1997?) Fun fact: There are more different types of heavy-metal music than among all other types of music. :-) Of course, what is good is a matter of taste. One can of course introduce objective criteria such as novelty, but as Cage, Stockhausen, Schönberg etc showed, one can have novelty without quality. Certainly there is good (but relatively unpopular) music being made now, and there was a lot of low-quality music 40 years ago. Can one say anything at all objective about quality? Good or bad, popular or unpopular, “classical” or “pop”, difficult or easy to play: these 4 axes are orthogonal. Is there anything meaningful in the title of this post?

I think one can claim the following:

What was popular 40 years ago is more diverse than what is popular now.

People were more willing then to listen to types of music which were new to them.

Music changed more rapidly. (Even if I don’t know the tune, I can hear if something is 1965 or 1970. Can one hear such a difference between, say, 1992 and 1997?)

Fun fact: There are more different types of heavy-metal music than among all other types of music. :-)

]]> By: “Music Was Better in the Sixties, Man” | Follow Me Here… http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77518 “Music Was Better in the Sixties, Man” | Follow Me Here… Sat, 04 Aug 2012 15:30:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77518 [...] And the answer is … popular music is in many ways unchanged over the years. The basic frequencies of different notes and so forth haven’t changed that much. But in certain crucial ways they have: in particular, they’ve become more homogeneous.’ (Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine). [...] [...] And the answer is … popular music is in many ways unchanged over the years. The basic frequencies of different notes and so forth haven’t changed that much. But in certain crucial ways they have: in particular, they’ve become more homogeneous.’ (Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine). [...]

]]> By: jarles alberg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/07/28/music-was-better-in-the-sixties-man/#comment-77517 jarles alberg Fri, 03 Aug 2012 13:26:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/?p=8703#comment-77517 Maybe Discover should take a hard look at the replies to this article, and revise their theoretical basis for this particular study. It seems to me when your hypothesis ends, riddled with hole after hole, and unanswered questions, maybe your start point is either wrong or biased. I think this study should be done over, taking in many of the variables offered by this discussion group. But in the end, it will only be much ado about nothing. We will all still have our own opinions about the type of music we like, until the brain mapping folks step in and modify our brains through sound waves, etc. When that happens, we may end up liking what is controlling our mind, not what we think we like. Maybe Discover should take a hard look at the replies to this article, and revise their theoretical basis for this particular study. It seems to me when your hypothesis ends, riddled with hole after hole, and unanswered questions, maybe your start point is either wrong or biased. I think this study should be done over, taking in many of the variables offered by this discussion group. But in the end, it will only be much ado about nothing. We will all still have our own opinions about the type of music we like, until the brain mapping folks step in and modify our brains through sound waves, etc. When that happens, we may end up liking what is controlling our mind, not what we think we like.

]]>