Is all successful pop music just of it's own time?

[leschirons]

Following a recent conversation regarding the Beatles, I've been trying to think of songs from the 60s 70s and even the 80s that would be successful if written today, and apart from show tunes, can't really come up with anything.


If the success of pop songs were purely reliant on being contemporary, it's quite a weird thought that had (for example) the Beatles written and recorded all those songs 15 years later, they may well have sold in hundreds rather than millions.

[blue]

I think The Beatles catalog still sells reasonable well. I'm sure there are a few other iconish bands from the 60s & 70 that still sell and have stood the test of time at certain levels.

Blue

[CrackerJackLee]

[size=5]I like folk music very much and play folk songs, but of the thousands that were popular in past generations, few would be hits in 2016. These folk songs were hits at one time, but most became nursery songs over the years and eventually disappeared. Now they are "teaching" songs or lullabyes. Or part of a medley of relaxation music.

The early Beatle hits are passe. I like them, but they are dated. And I now prefer to listen to the R&B originals that they copied, but those records were largely unavailable in the Western World due to state manipulation.

The early Beatle hits, like fashion, were depended largely on dance fads, discotheques, dating customs and repressed sexuality. Today, those customs are largely juvenile. We are also less enthusiastic as a people. Perhaps less naive. Look at the low birth rates. Soon, teenagers will be chatting about how lucky they are to be an accident.

And each decade seems to put the music of the previous decade on an ignore list. The Hippie Era deleted the Surf Era. The Rock Era deleted the Rock and Roll Era. Prog Rock deleted Psychedelica, while Rockabilly and Country got run over by New Country which is anything but Country... it is really Rural Pop. R&B got blasted out by RAP. Classical music is still popular to some, but not popular enough to still be considered hit music. New customs demands new music. The past and the present never meet; the people dance to a different beat.

A list of those songs that were hits 3 to 5 decades ago and would still be hits in 2016 (if it were possible for all of us to hear them for the very first time) would be highly opinionated. Probably default to a list of favorite tunes. Music seems to be a parade. The latter depend a lot on the former. To answer the OP's question truthfully would demand temporary amnesia. Realise that most young people today do not listen much to Big Band music or Jazz or the Beach Boys, except for rare exceptions.

I would think Greensleeves would be a smash hit, still. The Sultans of Swing and All Along the Watchtower, maybe. But when I listen to the radio, now, it is mostly belly button girl-groups singing poppy dance tunes to highly percussive music. I don't think that audience would be highly interested in Friday on My Mind by the Easy Beats.

Leo's bass changed all music. So inventions/technology route the parade down a new avenue. Powerful amps. Transistors. Wireless. Pedalboards. Multi-Track Boards. This puts old music and new music into different worlds that are light years apart.

My hunch is that melody is finite. Eventually you run out of original possibilities. Hence, the Retro-Music effect. Old is New again, by necessity. Perhaps the basket of music is full and the late additions are tepid. In fact, RAP has left music altogether to become a form of percussive poetry, with a limited topic. Are most like me, delving into the past to play Old Man's Records? I've learned to be a musician from thousands of dead musicians.

Popular music hits, in my limited opinion, are generated in and by the current era and live a very short life. Music of the Moment. Themes of the Times. Encapsulated Social Norms. Grist for Musicologists and Historians. But I'll always have time to listen to Petula Clark sing Downtown. My grandchildren may never hear it in the same way. As I listen to Sweet Rosie O'Grady, a quaint little tune that my Father liked quite a bit, I hear it but I don't feel it.[/size]

Edited December 15, 2016 by CrackerJackLee

[cheddatom]

great post, even if the style was a little bold

[ead]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1481768891' post='3195030']
I think The Beatles catalog still sells reasonable well. I'm sure there are a few other iconish bands from the 60s & 70 that still sell and have stood the test of time at certain levels.

Blue
[/quote]

Don't think that was quite what the OP was asking. If Love Me Do was released today (with no knowledge of former glories) would it still reach no.17 in the charts?

I'm not sure it would. Maybe Love Me Do feat. Rhianna and DJ Skanky Dick might though.

[Dropzone]

Impossible to say. Jake Bug is doing a throw back style as did Amy Winehouse, and some songs are just brilliant and timeless. For example (not my favourite) I will always love you was a bigger hit much later than when written. I say to my kids "That's a great pop song" eg Little Mixs current offerering expecting it will be thrown out with tomorrows dishwater, however Uptown Funk is the only tune recently that I think will have any real longevity. all IMHO.

[Downdown]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1481804488' post='3195267']
Don't think that was quite what the OP was asking. If Love Me Do was released today (with no knowledge of former glories) would it still reach no.17 in the charts?

[/quote]

It might do if the charts could be as easily influenced as they were in the 60s

[ead]

[quote name='Downdown' timestamp='1481820300' post='3195457']
It might do if the charts could be as easily influenced as they were in the 60s
[/quote]

I remember it well

[mikel]

Most Pop music is very much of the era. Not quite so much now, I think, as Pop, as we tend to define it, has had about 60 to 65 years of history to draw on. Acts are heavily influenced by say Soul or Funk from the 70s and add a little modern twist to it. I think the further back you go in Pop history the more difficult it would be to sell that song today.

[blue]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1481804488' post='3195267']


Don't think that was quite what the OP was asking. If Love Me Do was released today (with no knowledge of former glories) would it still reach no.17 in the charts?

I'm not sure it would. Maybe Love Me Do feat. Rhianna and DJ Skanky Dick might though.
[/quote]

Ok, well yeah I doubt "Love Me Do" would chart at all. Neither would "Satisfaction".

Not that it makes any difference ,but we haven't had Top 40 AM radio in decades.

Blue

Edited December 15, 2016 by blue

[mikel]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1481804488' post='3195267']
Don't think that was quite what the OP was asking. If Love Me Do was released today (with no knowledge of former glories) would it still reach no.17 in the charts?

I'm not sure it would. Maybe Love Me Do feat. Rhianna and DJ Skanky Dick might though.
[/quote]

There is no way they would, cos what was cutting edge then is naive and simplistic now. One thing still going for Love me Do, especially now, is the natural energy it has. Down to live take recording back then, and It shows up the sterility of a lot of over produced stuff on the radio at the moment where the production seems to be more important than the quality of the actual song.

[T-Bay]

All you need to do is take a classic song S L O W it down, then S L O W it down some more, put a stupid dance beat drum machine track behind and you are on a guaranteed hit. Or so it seems with some of the rubbish that passes for the charts these days.

[Winny Pooh]

Interesting topic. Take Sledgehammer, awesome song, huge hit, but if it were released now, would it make it onto radio?

[leschirons]

[quote name='Winny Pooh' timestamp='1481829239' post='3195566']
Interesting topic. Take Sledgehammer, awesome song, huge hit, but if it were released now, would it make it onto radio?
[/quote]

Exactly, my post came about due to our French guitarist saying that "Let it be" could still be a mega hit today as it's quality as a song is undeniable. My point is, probably not if you're hearing it for the first time.

[SteveK]

Generally speaking, a good song of the 60s is still a good song today! Of course lyrics/subject matter can date a song. But, the biggest thing to date a record is production, and to some extent arrangement.

[mikel]

[quote name='Winny Pooh' timestamp='1481829239' post='3195566']
Interesting topic. Take Sledgehammer, awesome song, huge hit, but if it were released now, would it make it onto radio?
[/quote]

Good point. Sledgehammer was Gabriel"s take on the Soul sound of his youth, so he was in effect bringing the Pop of his formative years up to date.

[Lozz196]

I think ABBA would have been popular whenever they came out. Although primarily a 70s band their sound doesn`t really link into either the glam of the early 70s, or the punk of the late 70s, just great tunes, with even better harmonies. That to me is real pop - when it`s virtually timeless in comparison to whatever else is current at the time.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1481830781' post='3195585']
... the biggest thing to date a record is production, and to some extent arrangement.
[/quote]

That's the thing, innit? If Lennon & McCartney were starting out today they'd probably be sat in a bedroom studio working on a Mac. As in history, they'd be assimilating the sounds that were around them and listening to earlier artists and writing songs and trying stuff out.

The main difference would be they'd probably be wearing silly tight jeans below the arse and sporting tattoos and hipster beards. They couldn't be pro's because there's no money in music for beginners these days so Lennon would be a dog-walker / rent boy and McCartney would be working as a Barista in Caffe Nero: 'Chocolate on yer Capperchino, luv? Fab gear!'

The reality is that the Beatles 'then' wouldn't cut it these days. But this is all a bit like the T-model Ford: It wouldn't sell now but there wouldn't be the same 'now' if it hadn't sold then.
[color=#ffffe0].[/color]

Edited December 16, 2016 by skankdelvar

[blue]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1481830781' post='3195585']
Generally speaking, a good song of the 60s is still a good song today! Of course lyrics/subject matter can date a song. But, the biggest thing to date a record is production, and to some extent arrangement.
[/quote]

I'll go with that but I'd ad social relevancy

Blue

[ead]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1481823251' post='3195490']
Ok, well yeah I doubt "Love Me Do" would chart at all. Neither would "Satisfaction".

Not that it makes any difference ,but we haven't had Top 40 AM radio in decades.

Blue
[/quote]

Bloody tragic, isn't it.

[ead]

[quote name='blue' timestamp='1481823251' post='3195490']
Ok, well yeah I doubt "Love Me Do" would chart at all. Neither would "Satisfaction".

Not that it makes any difference ,but we haven't had Top 40 AM radio in decades.

Blue
[/quote]

Brown Sugar would probably be banned (so could easily make it to no.1)

[Lord Sausage]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1481804488' post='3195267']
Don't think that was quite what the OP was asking. If Love Me Do was released today (with no knowledge of former glories) would it still reach no.17 in the charts?

I'm not sure it would. Maybe Love Me Do feat. Rhianna and DJ Skanky Dick might though.
[/quote]
Oh god, i love DJ Skanky Dick!

[MacDaddy]

A lot of 'pop' music is dated because of the technology and equipment used in recording it. Early 80's pop music in particular.

[blue]

[quote name='MacDaddy' timestamp='1481894775' post='3196052']
A lot of 'pop' music is dated because of the technology and equipment used in recording it. Early 80's pop music in particular.
[/quote]

I have to disagree, back in the days of analog recording you had real bands playing real instruments. That analog sound is a lot truer to what was going on in the studio than what you hear digitally.

And I'm talking more 60s and 70s technology.

While the music is dated in time, nothing sounds as big, clean, warm and robust as the soundtrack to the Beatles United Artists film release of "Hard Days Night".

Blue

Edited December 18, 2016 by blue

[blue]

[quote name='ead' timestamp='1481877036' post='3195833']


Bloody tragic, isn't it.
[/quote]

In a way, yes it is tragic.

I think, at least in the States top 40 exposed my generation to more different types of music.

The Beatles could have the number 1 spot on the charts and Frank Sinatra or Nat King Cole could have chatted number 2.

Blue

Edited December 18, 2016 by blue