Today when we were picking arbitrary "best 10 or 20 years of pop music," we all disagreed of course, but I don't think it's just that you pick the years of your youth. Rock was born in the 50s, and has had life stages. Not an expert, but will opine for a sec.
cc @dcherring

/1
@dcherring I totally get that people might point to 1955 to 1965 as the greatest period of ferment and change, going from Perry Como to the Beatles in just ten years. It's an amazing time. "She Loves You" still sounds ...revolutionary to me, as music. Dylan. Elvis. I get it. /2
But that music is still tentative and commercial and produced in mono by old guys. From 1965 onward rock goes from a youth yawp to a no-shit art form. Soon the acts that are big are guys who wanted to be the Beatles or Elvis when they were kids. It's the next generation. /2
There's also technological innovation by the early 70s that just wasn't around in the 60s. Stereo. FM emergence. Synthesizers, etc. Rock is no longer just packing the halls, it's a studio art form. To me, that makes the early 70s different and heading into a Golden Age. /3
I am not a music connoisseur and my taste kinda sucks, but music after about 1974 sounds "different" to me. It's not Bill Haley's kids, it's something else. Artists. Something like Becker and Fagan can't exist in 1967, imo. Yes, the 70s were awful, but also better in a way. /4
If you want a more textured view of the 70s, can't recommend the book highly enough by @davidfrum on this, who captures how the 70s, good or bad, become a deeper cultural experience. And the 80s, to me, with new wave and Brit Invasion 2.0, is immensely creative and interesting /5
So I'd say popular music comes into its own in the late 70s and early 80s; yes, I turn 18 in 1978, but I didn't much like the time I lived in and I don't associate the music with good times. At all.
I just think it was the "maturing" of rock into something different. /6
And that doesn't mean I think good music ends at 1985. (No, @jheil, I really don't!) But capitalism eats everything sooner or later, and the MTV video era - which drove a LOT of creative change - by the late 80s sort of collapses in on itself. Things, to me, feel derivative. /7
I think what happens going into the 90s, despite the upheaval of grunge and a new-new-wave and hip hop and the mainstreaming of urban is what other people have written about as a time of cultural stagnation in *many* forms of popular culture. /8
I still remember the young son of a friend telling me how much old music sucks and how much better songs like "Millennium" and some other song I can't remember and I had to point out that the riffs he liked were cannibalized from old songs. /9
To me, this was of a piece with a movie culture that was dredging old shows like The Beverly Hillbillies and managing to cast A-listers in them, and then making sequels about sequels. I think that period of stagnation has lasted a long time and I'm not the only guy to notice. /10
Anyway, there's lots of great music out there from 1961 and 2021. Just seemed to me if I had to pick the time rock matures into the thing that makes it a lasting world culture rather than a flash in the US/UK pan, that to me is from the early 70s to the mid-80s. /11
But that's just an impressionistic view from a consumer, rather than a cultural historian. On this, I could be wrong. :D
/12x

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Tom Nichols

Tom Nichols Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @RadioFreeTom

24 Apr
So, here's the thing. The "mission" is "prevent the use of nuclear weapons against the United States." The problem is endless scenario planning about warfighting use, which is ludicrous but it's what planners get paid for. /1
That's not to say planning and wargaming is a bad idea, because the President needs more options than "screw it, incinerate the planet." But the idea that "I need X warheads for the mission" is pretty much 1960 thinking. This is a throwback to "destroy X Soviet ability." /2
At every stage of nuclear reductions, someone said "Okay, but any lower and we're in mortal peril." Lower than 20,000? Peril. 6000? Peril limit. 2200? Threshold of Hell. This is baked into U.S. nuclear planning and never changes. /3
Read 10 tweets
20 Apr
I should have know that people would be "whatabouting" this and would whine about one comment about Biden.

Biden is the president. Sequestered or not, the chief executive can and should set an example by respecting the deliberations of a jury. He's not just another pundit. /1
It was not some huge or fatal error. But if you care about the rule of law, you do not want the president ahead of time speculating about the "right" verdict. That's something Trump would do. Presidents should say: "I have faith in the justice system." Period. /2
It doesn't *matter* that they were sequestered. That's not the issue. The issue is that if they'd gone any other way, the President would be in the position of saying "well, the jury got it wrong." You don't want Presidents in that position. Not a huge error, just unwise. /3
Read 4 tweets
18 Apr
There are plenty of military folks who value education; military is sending one of my uniformed students for a PhD at a top school. (I am being vague to protect privacy.) But increasingly, I note that there are many who also say things like "Harvard" with dripping contempt. /1
Some of this is the recent division between conservative America the rest of the country over those commie pinko university socialists, but that's always been present in the military: Bob Gates pleaded to "embrace the eggheads" when he was SECDEF. /2
But I could tell you stories that go way back, like the ROTC student who got into an Ivy League school and her service didn't want to pay for it. "Why should I send you there when I can send five of you to a public school?"
And they complain that the elitists won't join up. /3
Read 6 tweets
18 Apr
And yes, since I am critical of how military education works - the place I've spent my career - I will say more at another time about it. But the problem with PME is simple: It's run by the military. /1
That is, PME institutions are intended to create a fusing of civilian and military education to produce a better officer corps, more agile, more intellectually flexible to face the challenges ahead even if we can't be sure what they are. /2
My own school - FOR WHOM I DO NOT SPEAK, if that's not clear enough - has for 50 years been trying to prevent the intellectual civil-military rift that created Vietnam. VADM Turner's convocation address back in the 70s is very clear on this. /3
Read 8 tweets
18 Apr
When I first started lecturing to military audiences about civil-military relations 25 years ago, I said U.S. civ-mil relations were a excellent model.
I would never say that now. We have a dysfunctional civ-mil situation in so many ways. /1
Too many civilian political leaders lack military experience, and so they defer to the uniformed military too quickly. It's all "TYFYS" and "Tell us what you need to get the job done" and no real control other than some budgetary constraints. /2
We've gone from a citizen-soldier model to an army of venerated Spartans, who are treated - and who believe themselves to be - superior to the civilians they are supposed to serve and protect. We are creating a Latin American officer corps, isolated from society and above it. /3
Read 8 tweets
16 Apr
This is very American thinking. "If we keep doing this, does it make it better?" It's like asking: "If I take keep taking blood pressure medication, will my BP become normal?"
No. And you don't have to take it. And it does have side effects And maybe nothing will happen. /1
Part of the reason people hated the AFG mission is that it wasn't a "mission," it was prophylaxis. And that doesn't have an "end" or a "solution," you just stay in a bad situation to prevent a possible worse situation. Or you can accept the risk and move on. /2
The public has never sent a clear message about this, and the Pentagon is an organization based on risk-aversion, and presidents were trapped between catcalls of "warmonger" and "coward," and so Biden has made a decision, which is what presidents should do. /3
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!