Has Pop Music Got Worse In Recent Decades?

[Sherwood]

A bit of both I guess. music is not as good as when I was young, or for that matter my parents. Thats not to say there are not good things going on today, but the quality is not there over all. I doubt many of the current acts will be remembered fondly in 50 years. Good music often comes from poverty and hardship, and there is not so much of that in west now. a bit like football stars. when we were young we played with a tennis ball and your skills became better for it.

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, so much of the music that I listened to then would have been made by post war babies. Growing up in London, I still remember lots of bomb sites and gaps in terraced housing from bomb damage, even up to the mid 70s. My parents both worked hard, my father in two jobs as a chef. What I do not remember is mass homelessness and deep poverty. Even when my father died (when I was 10) the welfare state ensured that my mother had enough to raise two boys as a single mother. I was able to complete school and went to Uni with no fees and on a full grant. I doubt therefore that much of the music of the 70's and 80's, for example, was forged in conditions of poverty. Debauchery, perhaps, poverty no. I do not think that this applies today. As the UN recently reported, there is extensive poverty in Britain today, and it is not limited to the jobless or homeless. Even those in paid work find that their wages do not see them through to the end of the month. Whether this will be reflected in today's music remains to be seen.

Geoff

[Macca]

I grew up in the 60s and 70s, so much of the music that I listened to then would have been made by post war babies. Growing up in London, I still remember lots of bomb sites and gaps in terraced housing from bomb damage, even up to the mid 70s. My parents both worked hard, my father in two jobs as a chef. What I do not remember is mass homelessness and deep poverty. Even when my father died (when I was 10) the welfare state ensured that my mother had enough to raise two boys as a single mother. I was able to complete school and went to Uni with no fees and on a full grant. I doubt therefore that much of the music of the 70's and 80's, for example, was forged in conditions of poverty. Debauchery, perhaps, poverty no. I do not think that this applies today. As the UN recently reported, there is extensive poverty in Britain today, and it is not limited to the jobless or homeless. Even those in paid work find that their wages do not see them through to the end of the month. Whether this will be reflected in today's music remains to be seen.

Geoff

I think you are forgetting that there is a difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty.

However I agree that poverty is the wrong word, if you were living in poverty how would you afford instruments, or to rent a practice room? It was a chance to escape a life spent doing something dull in a factory or an office. I think the reason the same motivator does not exist today is because youngsters have broader horizons and don't see themselves ending up in a mundane job, even though the likelihood is they will. Back in the 1960s there was no doubt about it.

[Pigmy Pony]

Thanks Rob, that's a kind offer and I'm definitely interested. But I'm happy to pay you what you may think it's worth - I trust your judgement!

[Sherwood]

I think you are forgetting that there is a difference between absolute poverty and relative poverty.

However I agree that poverty is the wrong word, if you were living in poverty how would you afford instruments, or to rent a practice room? It was a chance to escape a life spent doing something dull in a factory or an office. I think the reason the same motivator does not exist today is because youngsters have broader horizons and don't see themselves ending up in a mundane job, even though the likelihood is they will. Back in the 1960s there was no doubt about it.

As a development economist who has spent the last 35 years working on international development and poverty I understand the difference and not just from an academic perspective. I have spent much of the last 20 years working on international health in some of the poorest countries in the world where the burden of disease and premature mortality (especially maternal and neonatal mortality) is greatest. Clearly, poverty in the UK is different to poverty in places like Malawi or Bangladesh. However, having come back to the UK due to ill health, I am struck by changes over the last 20 years that may be less obvious to those who have lived through them. Compared to my youth, younger people seem much more vulnerable to economic shocks and with less opportunity to make a decent life for themselves. They have been increasingly priced out of the housing market and have fewer opportunities for secure long term employment that pays them enough to meet their basic needs. Yes, consumer durables and technology is now much more affordable but not so much because wages have risen in real terms but because of productivity gains. My first new car purchased around 30 years ago (a Rover Metro) cost £7,500. A similar hatchback with much higher specs, performance and reliability (say a Hyundai i10) costs only a little more today. Similarly, when I left academia to set up as an independent consultant some 25 years ago, I recall spending £1,500 on a Toshiba T1200 notebook with monochrome LCD display and no hard drive.

Given a choice between being born around 1960 and 2000 I know which I would choose.

[Puffin]

Thanks Rob, that's a kind offer and I'm definitely interested. But I'm happy to pay you what you may think it's worth - I trust your judgement!

Ok, i'll have a look at it tomorrow - my man cave is a converted garage and it's dark outside:

[Pigmy Pony]

I don't see how comparisons can be made between poverty 50 or 60 years ago and poverty today. Things that may have been seen as luxuries back then have since become essentials, such as a TV and a car. Back then poverty would have meant not putting food on the table, where now it means having to choose between food on the table or a smartphone, an Xbox and a big telly to play it on.

[Pigmy Pony]

Ok, i'll have a look at it tomorrow - my man cave is a converted garage and it's dark outside:

Lucky you - my potential man cave has been converted into a nursery for visiting grandkids

[Macca]

I was born in 1968 and given the options I'd pick either 1960 or 2000 to be born in over 1968. 1968 was the worst of all worlds - the oil crisis was about to bring the economic party to an end, globalisation was about to turn full employment into mass unemployment. Too late to be around when the best music was being made, just the right age to come onto the labour market during a massive recession.

Never mind well-paid secure employment, we would have killed to even get a 'zero hours' contract. In fact I was unemployed for 4 years befoe I got a 'zero hours 'contract labouring (we were doing them before they even had a name for them) and my mate did 8 years on the dole before getting a job at the CAB (and he had to work there unpaid for four years to get that).

Yes houses were cheaper if you were in work but mortgage interest rates were around 10%, not 3% and with no job you had no chance of buying anything so the price of houses or indeed of anything was irrelevant.

About the only positive was that if you were going to be unemployed and therefore have time to explore the 'counter-culture' the early '90s was probably the best time to do it.


Actually scratch that, I'd pick 1960 first then 1968. Don't fancy 2000 on balance: growing up with no great music (Ed Sheeran FFS) insane levels of political correctness and the weird, sinister puritanism.

[Tim]

I'm shocked Martin, don't you like Ed Sheeran?

[Sherwood]

I was born in 1968 and given the options I'd pick either 1960 or 2000 to be born in over 1968. 1968 was the worst of all worlds - the oil crisis was about to bring the economic party to an end, globalisation was about to turn full employment into mass unemployment. Too late to be around when the best music was being made, just the right age to come onto the labour market during a massive recession.

Never mind well-paid secure employment, we would have killed to even get a 'zero hours' contract. In fact I was unemployed for 4 years befoe I got a 'zero hours 'contract labouring (we were doing them before they even had a name for them) and my mate did 8 years on the dole before getting a job at the CAB (and he had to work there unpaid for four years to get that).

Yes houses were cheaper if you were in work but mortgage interest rates were around 10%, not 3% and with no job you had no chance of buying anything so the price of houses or indeed of anything was irrelevant.

About the only positive was that if you were going to be unemployed and therefore have time to explore the 'counter-culture' the early '90s was probably the best time to do it.


Actually scratch that, I'd pick 1960 first then 1968. Don't fancy 2000 on balance: growing up with no great music (Ed Sheeran FFS) insane levels of political correctness and the weird, sinister puritanism.

I don't want to divert this thread further: my comment was a response to the suggestion that poverty is a driver of great music. My position was that most of the music of the 60's onwards has not been driven by poverty but that the current environment may see that change. However, a few brief points.

Yes there is absolute poverty where markers such as PEM (protein energy malnutrition and growth stunting) are clear evidence of an underlying problem. That exists even today and even in the UK.

However, there is no question that inequality has been rising inexorably for decades now. I won't bore readers with references to the research or data, but if you are interested just Google trends in income and wealth inequalities or look up this site https://youtu.be/xyprxOa1H1s

Perhaps more important are life expectations. Today, there are few young people who expect to be as well off as their parents, let alone better off. That, for me, is a frightening alert to inter generational conflict and social dystopia! Absolute or relative poverty is only part of social anomie. Fuck that: I'm an economist and you've got me referencing 19th century French sociologists!

Coming back on thread, I love the original "negro" blues of disenfranchised USA and understand and empathise with the despair it stemmed from. However, don't tell me that the blues of white middle class Englishmen was rooted in that pain and suffering. I still like the latter, but it demonstrates that a musical genre can be learned rather than lived!