Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>and then for a few weeks the cultural conversation would be dominated by this - a book of poetry. Which people 50 years from now would be reading in lit classes.

I'm too young to remember this for poetry, but it certainly was true for music, TV shows, and movies for long after it was true for poetry. People are still talking about The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, various highly-successful movies from the 60s-00s (Lord of the Rings for instance), TV shows like Game of Thrones, etc. However, I'd say it's less true today, but TV for instance seems to have lot of this still going on with people talking about various high-caliber shows like The Expense, Silo, etc. I think poetry simply went the way of theater: other art forms surpassed it in popularity, though it still has its niche audience: New York's Broadway is still quite popular. And people spend lots of money on music concerts.



Time is a great filter.

Was music in the '60s and '70s better than music today? Probably not.

If you were able to time travel back to then and listen at some random time to a radio tuned to a pop station you'd hear a lot of OK songs, a smaller number of good songs and bad songs, and a few great songs. Just like if you listened to some stream of a wide selection of recent music.

Is music from the '60s and '70s that you are likely to hear today better than most recent music? Probably.

Listen to an oldies stream and it likely is to just include those songs from then that were great or good, and it will be drawing from several years.

Same thing happens with TV. Old sitcoms like "Frasier" are as good as the best being produced today. Same with even older shows like "The Dick Van Dyke Show" and "I Love Lucy". But there were a heck of a lot of other sitcoms from the same times that are almost forgotten.

With sitcoms the old sitcoms we might still see are probably more likely to be great than the old music we still hear today, because old sitcoms have an additional filter to get past. You'll probably only see them today if they had enough episodes to be worth syndication.

They typically show one episode a day and they want to be able to go several months before wrapping around. Even with having more episodes per year back then than we typically have now (~32 then, ~24 now) the show would have to last at least 3 years to get enough episodes for syndication. Many a show that was great or near great and would have become great in season 2 or 3 has been killed by its network for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of the show.

(I no longer watch anything on Fox other than sports and reality shows because of that. After "Firefly", "Futurama", "Terra Nova", and "Lucifer" I learned my lesson. I don't care how great people say a Fox show is now, I will either wait until Fox cancels it and watch it on streaming if people tell me that it got a proper series finale, or I might consider watching entire seasons before that but only if those seasons ended at points that would be good stopping points. "Terra Nova" and "Lucifer" ended on huge cliff hangers).


>Was music in the '60s and '70s better than music today? Probably not.

Yes, it was absolutely better. This "it's just your age" thing is BS. The entire music industry back then was different; bands were discovered by record company agents, not manufactured by them. And Auto-tune didn't exist either, so if someone was a great singer, you knew it was real and not just computer-generated fakery like now.

Similarly, you can't say that music of the, say, 1890s, was just as good as music from the 1970s. They were fundamentally different: recorded music basically didn't exist in the 1890s.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: