Retromania: Pop culture's Addiction to its Own Past. (New Simon Reynolds book).

Like both of this book's covers are very now, in their different ways.

Graphic design is the most likely and rewarding form of pop culture carbon dating imo. It's also a form which is forever borrowing from the past, but somehow the actual era is never in doubt.

So what happens when both music and books no longer appear in material form? How will something show its age as an MP3/ pdf/ or whatever replaces them?

your book has a cover lol dated

I'm always obsessed with this stuff (ie, Weezer's "Buddy Holly" being 90s worship of 70s TV show that worshipped 50s culture), but every time I write about it, it seems really clinical and unfun and kind of tedious (cf, many of the first 100 posts in this thread, no offense). I'm kind of interested to see if Reynolds can make this readable, dig?

Graphic design is the most likely and rewarding form of pop culture carbon dating imo. It's also a form which is forever borrowing from the past, but somehow the actual era is never in doubt.

I like this statement but you could swap out music or film or fashion and still be otm

How could anyone possibly take offense at being called unfun and kind of tedious?

hey i am truly sorry if i helped steer the conversation away from "lol, that cover sucks." i don't apologize for being tedious though. i want to cultivate a more tedious approach in my old age.

How will something show its age as an MP3/ pdf/ or whatever replaces them?

⌘I, it's under "date created"

xhuxk, I'm not sure that Oldies But Goodies was nostalgia, really, at least not for something lost. I think it was just that Art Laboe started playing some songs from a few years before on his radio show and it was popular and then they did the albums.

Yeah, I suppose it's conceivable that the definition of the word "oldies" (which has implied nostalgia ever since I've been conscious of it anyway) changed somewhere along the line, and oldies station now (or even in the '70s) might not be comparable to ones in the late '50s or early '60s. But (and AG expert clemenza should pipe in on this maybe), when I watch American Graffiti I definitely get the idea that the "oldies weekend" songs from just a few years before are making the characters wistful for years gone by, as they see the last minutes of their last high school summer drifting away etc.

I was under the impression that the word "oldies" was used for late Forties and Fifties adult pop before then.

The key line is probably Milner's "Rock 'n' roll's been going downhill since Buddy Holly died" (he also makes it clear that he hates that "surfin' shit"). The thing is, I'm not sure if that's Milner speaking, or George Lucas. Seeing as Lucas is a product of California surf-and-car culture, it's probably Milner. Conclusion: I haven't got a clue who's nostalgic for what, or what it might mean.

Btw, in closely related '70s-nostalgia-for-'50s news, I actually Netflixed The Lords Of Flatbush (from 1974, with Henry Winkler and Sly Stallone) last week, and it was a lot worse than I'd hoped and remembered. (Hadn't seen it in decades.) Also really hated the fake '50s music that didn't sound remotely '50s (a concept that Grease pulled off a whole lot better, and more lucratively, a few years later.)

watch the wanderers instead. love that movie. although that takes place in 1963, i think.

Yeah, I love that one too, Scott.

or watch the hollywood knights! but that takes place in 1965. watch american hot wax instead.

A staple of my first few years of listening to the radio were CHUM's "Solid Gold Weekends" in the early '70s. That's where I first heard everything from the Everlys to "White Room" to the Cowsills. I think their definition of Solid Gold was very fluid chronology-wise--anything that wasn't current but had once been a hit, stetching from last year back to Bill Haley. I was too young to understand the concept of nostalgia, though, and have no idea how much of a role that might have played.

The black version, pretty good from what I remember: Cooley High (similarly mid-'60s).

is there a point in american pop before which we can say that pop was not constantly enmeshed in the process of mythologizing its own past?

i ask because i've always (in a fairly dull-witted way) wanted to peg the transition point to the late 50s and early 60s, like that's the last moment during which american pop wasn't so obviously engaged with reflexively critiquing and pillaging its own history. those years are maybe not coincidentally the arguable apotheosis of twentieth century american pop, both the apex of postwar american optimism, arrogance and creativity, and also the point at which pop culture became a thing of real and lasting value in the american mind, beginning the eradication of any meaningful high/low distinction in the arts.

i've satisfied myself with this rough, mental demarcation point for many years without thinking too deeply about it. during the years in question, we get the emergence of backwards-looking, authenticity-enshrining folk & blues movements that attached themselves to an early 20th century golden age, arguably early harbingers of subsequent pop retro. that mid-century hinge-point also seems like ground zero for hobbyist/collector cults dedicated to the elevation and preservation of period toys, comics, music, commercial design, etc. plus warhol and lichtenstein pushing things from one direction, and from the other (a few years later), r. crumb and other underground comix types fetishizing early 20th century design & iconography. maybe it's related to the death, in our culture, of childhood, or rather to our collective decision to perpetuate and mythologize childhood as a lifetime pursuit. unlike jackie paper, we're no longer expected to shed childish things. in fact, as pop peoples, we're expected to serve as curators of our own endless childhood until we die.

or so it seems, sometimes. any good examples of dominant reflexive retro in american pop prior to the 50s?

i ask because i've always (in a fairly dull-witted way) wanted to peg the transition point to the late 50s and early 60s, like that's the last moment during which american pop wasn't so obviously engaged with reflexively critiquing and pillaging its own history. those years are maybe not coincidentally the arguable apotheosis of twentieth century american pop, both the apex of postwar american optimism, arrogance and creativity, and also the point at which pop culture became a thing of real and lasting value in the american mind, beginning the eradication of any meaningful high/low distinction in the arts.

fyi this is kinda bullshit imaginary history -- imo u should read elijah wald's 'the beatles destroyed rock n roll' despite its challopy title

there were dixieland revivalists in the 40s, ragtime would get revived over & over, there was near-constant references to antebellum south, etc

ground zero for hobbyist/collector cults dedicated to the elevation and preservation of period toys, comics, music, commercial design, etc.

this has more to do with post-war mass-manufacturing and mass-marketing of commodities than anything else.

deej OTM

man, i almost started a thread just for the QUOTE from that beatles book that deej posted on that music book thread. maybe i was feeling cranky. here we go, found it:

"(The Beatles) had led their audience off the dance floor, separating rock from its rhythmic and cultural roots, and while the gains may have balanced the losses in both economic and artistic terms, that change split American popular music in two. When similar splits had happened in the past, the demands of satisfying live audiences had always forced the streams back together, but by the end of the 1960s live performances had lost their defining role on the pop music scene. So the Beatles and the movement they led marked the end not only of rock ’n’ roll as it had existed up to that time but also of the whole process explored over the course of this book, in which white and black musicians had evolved by adopting and adapting one another’s styles, shaping a series of genres—ragtime, jazz, swing, rock ’n’ roll—that at their peaks could not be easily categorized by race." 246

i don't know if i agree with any of this. especially the live performance thing. unless you don't think consistently filling football stadiums with 100,000+ people all throughout the 70's wasn't some sort of social pop phenomena. it was the decade of live concert "events".

and as far as the genre thing goes, there was plenty of music not easily categorized by race in the 70's. fusion, free jazz, disco, soft rock, singer songwriter pop, lite pop soul, etc.

and people dance to beatles music all the time. the beatles were very much in touch with their rhythmic roots. i can play you 4 zillion 70's r&b beatles covers that were played in black clubs filled with black audiences as evidence if needed.

oh i could go on...

― scott seward, Monday, April 4, 2011 12:50 PM (3 weeks ago)

and then of course i went on:

i mean the some of the biggest pop acts in the u.s. in the early 70's were pop/jazz/r&b/rock hybrids like chicago, blood,sweat&tears, and three dog night. and they packed in the fancy dancers everywhere they played. so what did the beatles kill again?

― scott seward, Monday, April 4, 2011 1:08 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah the book falls off at that point because he doesnt get contemporary music, but thats not really the point of the book & only takes up its last chapter or 2 iirc.

(The Beatles) had led their audience off the dance floor

I'm curious about what dance floor this might be referring to. High school sock hops? Because high school dances, of course, kept happening into the '60s and beyond and are still happening. And even when the Beatles weren't making music that was as consistently danceable as their earlier music, others were.

i mean, he claims its the point of the book, but its not really the meat of it & imo serves as a 'lets try to sell some books' hook for ppl

there is something interesting at the core of his thesis though, and some truth to how audiences were suddenly divided along racial lines in some more pronounced ways, but its more complicated & much messier than he makes it sound, plus he doesnt adjust for the importance of DJs, international music & audiences, lots of other things

I'm curious about what dance floor this might be referring to. High school sock hops? Because high school dances, of course, kept happening into the '60s and beyond and are still happening. And even when the Beatles weren't making music that was as consistently danceable as their earlier music, others were.

― timellison, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:22 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

rock and roll became 'listening music' at this time, separating 'those who like to dance' from those who took music 'seriously'

in the 50s, 'listening music' was adult pop & stuff that was primarily designed for ppl with nice stereo systems (argues the book) while rock music was noisy kids dance stuff

I think '50s rock and roll was 'listening music', too, and maybe just as profoundly as it was dance music.

I just think again, where was this dancing taking place? At diners to jukeboxes? I think kids' experience with the music was in their bedrooms more.

Not to make it sound like a totally solitary thing. It was social, too, but even in the diner, how much of it was dancing and how much just having music on? Or hanging out with friends, car radios, that's listening music. And at Alan Freed rock and roll concerts, I think the kids sat and watched the acts.

agree to some extent, but there's no clear line. kids danced at sock hops, as they said, school dances (still a thing), clubs and bars, dance halls, all over the place. also second-hand, via things like american bandstand, but that gets us into gray areas.

my big problem with that quote is that the 70's was arguably the most racially diverse (band/group-member-wise) decade in american history and it was filled with music created by people who quite happily mixed jazz/r&b/funk with beatles-esque headphone rock! the beatles - and other art-rockers of the 60's - were a great catalyst for some of the most exciting genre-bending and stylistic exercises this country has ever produced. as far as i'm concerned, anyway. but, yeah, it is only one quote.

I could be totally wrong, but whenever I read first-generation rock critics like Marcus, Ed Ward, etc. writing about '50s rock and roll, I always feel like it was mostly experienced alone, off the radio, late at night. Maybe I'm projecting, or maybe that's a rock-critic thing; maybe the 99.9% of '50s teenagers not destined to be rock critics danced.

why do critics get pissed that music isn't all one thing?

It would be interesting to look at Top 40 lists from, say, 1967 through the mid-'70s and see how many rock records were up there that were danceable and would have been stuff played at high school dances.

there were dixieland revivalists in the 40s, ragtime would get revived over & over, there was near-constant references to antebellum south, etc

― geeks, dweebs, nerds & lames (D-40), Monday, April 25, 2011 4:54 PM (44 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah, that's a fair objection. easy example in contemporary pop: the riffing on "old-timey" culture & music in the coen brothers' o brother, where art thou?. american country & western music has always long in the nostalgia business, no argument there. and i'm not trying to claim that retro was invented in the 50s/early 60s. i do think that "retro pop" as a distinct thing (yet inseparable from pop itself) did emerge during that era - to be more precise, that era somehow allowed it to be subsequently born.

and in saying that, i realize that contemporary pop as i understand it was in some sense born during the same era, so maybe what i'm thinking/saying has more to do with mod pop as a whole than with any retro reflexivity buried within it.

though i want to cast the backward-looking, childhood-besotted retro pop that really took off in the american 70s as a uniquely modern symptom, i'm a bit at a loss as to how i might make the case. it's not as though i've done a great deal of research on the subject. maybe i'd try to argue that prior to my midcentury hinge point, retro referentiality and pop-as-mythology were not universal aspects of shared culture, but were instead tied to genres and subcultures in which they made a kind of formal sense. like how country and other "old-timey" music has of course always been backwards-looking and thus somewhat self-referential, because the past is its explicit text.

The focus on "freakbeat" in retrospect made it clear how danceable '67-'68 era English rock was, too.

It would be interesting to look at Top 40 lists from, say, 1967 through the mid-'70s and see how many rock records were up there that were danceable

That might be hard to determine. I've got a special dance I do to Yes's "Roundabout," but it never really caught on nationally.

there are some more interesting theories in the book that we're discussing that might cause you to look at things differently -- the basic one being the shift from the sheet music being seen as the thing people were purchasing, while the recording was just a novelty, to the recording & specific performance becoming the point of the purchase

I think '50s rock and roll was 'listening music', too, and maybe just as profoundly as it was dance music.

― timellison, Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:27 AM (34 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

we're talking about how people treated it at the time. is soulja boy considered 'listening music'

i know some kids who just listen to it -- they post on this board as 'j0rdan sargent'

like, either all music is 'listening music,' or you're looking at this thru v distorted blinders imho

this has more to do with post-war mass-manufacturing and mass-marketing of commodities than anything else.

― The Everybody Buys 1000 Aerosmith Albums A Month Club (Shakey Mo Collier), Monday, April 25, 2011 4:58 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

agree with this too, though it was offered as a rebuttal to my argument. i don't separate these things. pop retro's metastasis in american culture following the 50s and early 60s was probably in large part due to mass-manufacturing and mass-marketing (read: television).

I'm not sure that "clubs" and "dancehalls" for kids existed in the U.S. in the '50s. From what I know, kids' social experience with rock and roll would mostly have been jukeboxes, and probably not so much in places that had dance floors.

And the old archetypal thing of listening to Alan Freed before you turned out the light was rock and roll as 'listening music' - definitely!

Two experiences with "Roundabout" lately. One was that I watched a home movie of a famous radio DJ from my hometown in the '70s on Youtube just the other night and he was working at an AM station and one of the records he was playing in the clips was "Roundabout" on a 45. And then I saw a clip of a recent Yes tour on TV a month or so ago and they had a bunch of people up on stage dancing when they played that song.

I'd imagine "Roundabout" was played at some high school dances.

plus, a lot of people only got the big city stations that played the cool music at night if they held their radios a certain way.

i think you're misunderstanding the idea of 'listening music' here, or we're simply using the same term to describe entirely different things. of course i dont think rock fans exclusively danced to rock music

'listening music' = high art, high sound quality, sold in album format, meant to 'stand the test of time,' etc etc etc

rock n roll in the 50s: ephemeral, kids stuff, sold on 45s almost exclusively