OK, Boomer.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Will Taylor Swift still be popular in 30 years?
- Thread starter nd2023
- Start date
Taking this thread even further away from the topic of Houston-Galveston radio, TIL the term "Generation Jones" from boombox4. Had to look up that one, LOL!
OK, backing off from the snark a bit here.
Stonewall- the first US gay rights organization formed in 1925. The first lesbian rights org formed in 1955. Stonewall happened in 1969, when the oldest Boomer was 23 but when most of the Boomers were kids or teens. The average age of arrest for the rioters was 36- not Boomers. Have Boomers been an important part of the gay rights evolution? Of course- a huge group of people also by definition means a huge group of gay people. But let's not pat ourselves on the back too much here- it wasn't until this century that we finally goy some movement towards equal rights, and those have been in fits and starts even now. It wasn't until we had a large enough cohort of younger voters that we saw government recognition of gay marriage.
Ecology- the EPA was started by Nixon. Not a boomer. Silent Spring was written by Rachel Carson- very much not a Boomer. Carter (not a Boomer) was the prez who put up solar panels on the White House. Wind power has been around in some fashion for centuries. Solar, as we understand it today, was largely developed in the early 60s as part of the Space Race. Yes, the evolution of these technologies has continued, and some Boomers played their part. But it has been an evolution, NOT a revolution. And it has been progress largely generated by profit seeking, not altruism. Once the Greatest Generation invented the transistor and the photo-voltaic cell, progress was going to continue, as long a there was a dollar to be made.
Race relations- The Civil Rights act was enacted in 1964. The oldest Boomer was 18, but again the vast majority were children. Same with the Voting Rights act of 1965. LBJ was not a Boomer. JFK/RFK were not Boomers. MLK, Jr, and the folks who walked with him to Selma were not Boomers. Rosa Parks was not a Boomer.
Yes. It is a seven year old book, written, annotated and footnoted by a sociologist, never meant for a mass audience. I m sure the author and the publisher are thrilled that the book has had enough lasting power to still be among the quarter million most popular titles on Amazon.
Your opinion. If you had actually read the book you would not find the title laughable at all. If you had read the book you would have understood that the author understands individual people in the generation born between 1946-64 often made great individual sacrifices and did wonderful things. The author also acknowledges that nobody is born yearning to be a sociopath. What he is arguing, using a great deal of pretty dry data, is that the nature of the world the generation was born into, and the way that cohort has been treated their entire lives, has been what has nurtured an overall sociopathology. Call it spoiled child syndrome, where a huge group of people has been catered to in such a way that they don't even realize they have been catered to.
Good lord, where do we start here? If you ARE a Boomer, congratulations- you have summed up the sociopathy quite nicely here, if unintentionally. If you are NOT, then you most certainly have bought in.
Stonewall- the first US gay rights organization formed in 1925. The first lesbian rights org formed in 1955. Stonewall happened in 1969, when the oldest Boomer was 23 but when most of the Boomers were kids or teens. The average age of arrest for the rioters was 36- not Boomers. Have Boomers been an important part of the gay rights evolution? Of course- a huge group of people also by definition means a huge group of gay people. But let's not pat ourselves on the back too much here- it wasn't until this century that we finally goy some movement towards equal rights, and those have been in fits and starts even now. It wasn't until we had a large enough cohort of younger voters that we saw government recognition of gay marriage.
Ecology- the EPA was started by Nixon. Not a boomer. Silent Spring was written by Rachel Carson- very much not a Boomer. Carter (not a Boomer) was the prez who put up solar panels on the White House. Wind power has been around in some fashion for centuries. Solar, as we understand it today, was largely developed in the early 60s as part of the Space Race. Yes, the evolution of these technologies has continued, and some Boomers played their part. But it has been an evolution, NOT a revolution. And it has been progress largely generated by profit seeking, not altruism. Once the Greatest Generation invented the transistor and the photo-voltaic cell, progress was going to continue, as long a there was a dollar to be made.
Race relations- The Civil Rights act was enacted in 1964. The oldest Boomer was 18, but again the vast majority were children. Same with the Voting Rights act of 1965. LBJ was not a Boomer. JFK/RFK were not Boomers. MLK, Jr, and the folks who walked with him to Selma were not Boomers. Rosa Parks was not a Boomer.
Strawman argument. Not even worth a response.
Let's back off the "Generation Conflict" unless it has to do directly with radio or its underlying technology. Further non-radio posts will be deleted.
(Interesting subject, but not directly related to this site's focus)
(Interesting subject, but not directly related to this site's focus)
I for one appreciate this, because my Boomer uncle, who was drafted and got shot in Vietnam (and there were thousands of others like him), is anything but "spoiled' or "sociopathic", and it's even more difficult for me to see what any of the generational conflict stuff has to do with whether Taylor Swift is popular 30 years from now.
Taylor Swift's career longevity will be more based on the quality of her music, than the present age of her fans. The music, after all, is what makes an artist have longevity.
I'm a guitar player, and guys still talk about 1930s blues guys like Son House, Leadbelly, and Robert Johnson. They still want to know those players' techniques. The old blues guys don't get airplay, sure. But their music and influence is still there, especially online -- in blues and guitar circles. Some of Robert Johnson's vid clips have close to a million views. He's not a star, obviously. His appeal may just be limited to guitar players and blues fans. But his music has definitely had longevity.
I can't see where Taylor Swift isn't listened to in 2050. Will she be getting airplay? Who knows. Will there still be such a thing as airplay then? I'm sure her music vids will still be popular. Her career might fade and then she may make a comeback. Cher did. It's doable.
Taylor Swift obviously has the ability to stay current 17 years after she had her first hit. I can't see where her vids, at least, don't still get thousands of plays in 2050.
They may be influential to a small number of guitar or blues aficionados, but they're not "popular," which is the key word in this thread.
Unfortunately, many of the most frequent posters on the good ol' days of radio, including myself, haven't much of a chance of still being here 30 years from now.
Maybe the first question you can ask the big guy upstairs is “will Taylor Swift still be popular in 2053?”
That is the problem with the music industry today. They aren't developing talented artists anymore. They would rather go by how many followers they have on social media than a true talented individual. The main reason why a lot of popular music has gotten mediocre.
Taylor Swift is a Superstar on radio, recordings, and on stage. She'll maintain some popularity for decades to come. Is Cher still popular? Are some stations continuing to, at least, play Cher's "Believe" processed vocal song from 1999-2000? Nobody's playing her more recent Abba tribute/covers CD as far as I can tell.
Do you know how they discover artists today? TikTok. Whoever gets the most followers gets a record deal. No one knows if that person can actually sing or perform on a stage in front of an audience. All they know is they can attract an audience on TikTok. They also don't know if that person has enough songs to have a follow-up hit after the first one. But that's how artist development is done today.
The basis for Taylor Swift's career is songwriting. That's who she was before she got a record deal. Not a social media star.
Taylor who
OK, boomer. Or OK, hipster. Whatever.
Even when posted in jest, I am disturbed by this "who?" comment and, less specifically, the general dismissal of anything new... whether an artist or a trend... as lacking when compared to half-century or older artists and songs and styles.
Were there not innovation in art, we would not have the impressionists and the pointillists or Picasso and Cezanne and Dalí. And music is art, too.
And speaking of those three "modern art" stars, one can compare the initial reaction to their styles to the rejection of hip-hop, reggaetón, trap, rap and other newer music genres.