This will be a reference to numerous posts within the thread:
The Monkees: I'm by no means a Monkees fan, but lets not forget that the writers behind the Monkees were very good and many of the Monkees songs were excellent songs, however........it was geared towards ages 15 and under for the most part. If you were 20 years old in 1967 you weren't listening to Pleasant Valley Sunday, you were listening to Dylan, Hendrix, The Doors, James Brown, Aretha etc.
Today, I see 26 year olds listening to the garbage which you were comparing the Monkees to. The Monkees songs didn't recycle the same 4 chords over and over, despite it not being original material. I'm a Believer, Stepping Stone, Daydream Believer, Pleasant Valley, Clarksville....they're all different sounding,and while they're essentially Beatles derived, it's still more musical than the bulk of the songs you hear on mainstream radio which are really just the same songs re-manufactured.
Regarding good music always being around......YES i'm aware of this. But what I am saying is that mainstream music is where the Culture unifies and creates a musical identity. If you think Of Montreal or MGMT or Arcade Fire is going to be the way music is remembered throughout the youth generation in 30 years, you're wrong. This generation which is presently between 15 and 25 will be remembered for "come here rude boy boy are you big enough?" and "It's too late to apologize" and "can't read my poker face"............that's not much of a musical identity if you ask me.....and without a musical identity, it doesn't matter how much great music there is being released, if there's no money being invested in it then it's just what it is.....good music, it can't move a culture like it once did.
Regarding The Beatles being simple back beat and crappy by people born in the 20s and 30s. Sure they said that, and based on the Beatles first albums it's not too far from the truth, their music was simple and not as musical as other stuff had been, but as they quickly grew, they became undeniable artists, as others in their generation did and very few people fail to see this. I mean, Leonard Bernstein, Ned Rorem, Aaron Copland, Philip Glass.....all highly respected composers of the Classical realm have spoken openly of The Beatles' artistry and other artists of the time such as Brian Wilson, Pete Townshend, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell etc.
I'm only 27........ I am able to hear the genuine quality of artists all the way from the begining of the 20th Century. My collection of music preceeding 1930 is immense, and it's not like I'm stuck in "my 10 year generation of music" which would be the 90s." I love the Hot Fives, the Ellington Orchestra, Charlie Parker is one of my greatest idols, The Andrew Sisters, Bing, Frank, even Jolson..........mainstream music seems to me, had consistent musical value until about 5 years ago, where I feel it's now just the same song over and over with the same skanky message and complete void of musicality. There is no musical identity anymore for this generation. The fact that there's always good music being made is irrelevant to me....I am lucky to have the time and money to purchase and seek it. But as a musician I fear that the generation I will grow with and possibly further generations will have no concept of what quality music is.......The music world is now the Pop Culture world, there's no separation between the two as far as mainstream. And this is because you don't actually need talent to put out a record any longer. The Wall Street Execs know this. Technology can make you sound good and you can sell records as long as you look the part. You don't even need to sing live anymore. Forgetting about that on Sullivan and Bandstand bands used to lipsync, when you saw them live, you were hearing a live performance.....not anymore, and if you are you'll be lucky if they don't have live-correcting autotune filtering everything they do. When Milli Vanilli did it, it ruined their career...........today it ruined Ashlee Simpson's career, but strangely most pop singers don't sing live at their concerts without autotune.
The writing is what bothers me most......that every song needs to be the same 4 chords. The blues and folk have always been basic chords, but unlike the pop that I am referencing to, the blues and folk have used 3 or 4 chords as a way to communicate and improvise something emotional and informative where the musical layout was less a part of what was key in the music. Woody Guthrie singing the Dust Bowl Ballads against the I, IV,V is certainly of higher quality than hearing the same 4 chords in every song about how some girl wants to get drunk at a club etc..............In other words if you're going to use the same 4 chords in every song, you better have something unique to say with your words. That's not the case in today's mainstream....today's mainstream is manufactured by a bunch of money-hungry wallstreet execs with a formula and a team of writers who know that they cannot do anything outside the realm of what is safe. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$, more than ever before, because it's not about the music whatsoever, and that's just that. Maybe grandparents complained about Sinatra, Elvis, The Beatles, Zeppelin, Michael Jackson........but for the most part the artists proved their artistry and gave each generation an identity of value. Maybe Elvis is a bit more celebrity than he is musical, as is Michael Jackson.....but no matter what their flaws, the generations that preceded this one had a musical identity, not a pop culture identity.
EDIT: Last thing.......if you take the 70s for instance.....bands like Mahavishnu Orchestra, Jethro Tull, Yes, Return To Forever, Weather Report.....they may not have been "mainstream" but back in the 70s mainstream was not only the pop singles......bands like that had a chance at getting a top ten album. This is because the mainstream was much more aware. I mean, Miles Davis had several successful records despite not being mainstream.
