I would argue that a curated zeitgeist is a good thing, as is a curated "culture"... and the quarter century plus experiment that is the internet has proven this. Curated culture doesn't mean the elite curators are "right" or that such a culture is "better"... just that there IS a culture (or zeitgeist) at all. A flattened environment of lowest common denominator choices is not a culture, it is anti-culture... anti-zeitgeist.
Culture requires a clash of hierarchies. My high school and college days sat squarely in the '80s... 1981-1989, so my adolescence was shaped by 70's rock, while my real musical awakening was shaped by the overthrow of that via Punk, New Wave, Industrial, Goth, Alternative, alongside Hip-Hop and Electronica. Those "zeitgeist" movements can only happen in rebellion toward the previous standards... and every off-shoot and subculture that would resonate down the decades was CULTIVATED and CURATED by elites within that sub space.
Culture and zeitgeist arises out of the clash of ideas and arguments over "good and bad" and human battles for the hearts and minds of listeners (or readers or viewers or whatever audience matters). Having anything and everything without forces... HUMAN forces... trying to sway you with argument and bombast... that isn't culture. That is soup.
The internet throws all of human existence into a giant stew, bubbling away the spice and flavor and strange exhilarations... and provides a thin, bland gruel that we are INHUMANELY fed by machines that tell us this is what we want.
I always enjoy Daniel Parris's analysis. This one overlooks one reality. The music we listen to today from the 50s, 60s, and 70s is the best of the era. The slop has long since been forgotten. In a few decades, the same will be true for today's music.
Can you also show that the hits aren't as big as they once were, that even though they're the most popular, outside of maybe the top ten, it probably gets more scattered and niche? Do you have share percentage or just ranking to do something like that?
I've been looking for a simple, clean website to use for daily browsing and quick checks. Most pages I found were either slow or filled with annoying pop‑ups. Then I came across one that works really well – it loads fast, has a tidy layout, and no distractions. If you need a calm online space for routine use, take a look: https://roboforex.com/ I've been using it for a while and it's been consistently reliable and easy to navigate.
Interesting analysis. I've recently been going to metal festivals featuring relatively new bands. The crowds are evenly divided between boomers/genXers on the one hand and 20-somethings on the other. I think that within each "generation" taken broadly, there are subcultures that go against the grain. Genre preferences can override generational chauvinism.
Spotify's nerds didn't pick Friday as Global Release Day – Beyoncé and piracy did. See https://time.com/6961069/beyonce-music-industry/ and https://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8116201/friday-new-albums-beyonce
I would argue that a curated zeitgeist is a good thing, as is a curated "culture"... and the quarter century plus experiment that is the internet has proven this. Curated culture doesn't mean the elite curators are "right" or that such a culture is "better"... just that there IS a culture (or zeitgeist) at all. A flattened environment of lowest common denominator choices is not a culture, it is anti-culture... anti-zeitgeist.
Culture requires a clash of hierarchies. My high school and college days sat squarely in the '80s... 1981-1989, so my adolescence was shaped by 70's rock, while my real musical awakening was shaped by the overthrow of that via Punk, New Wave, Industrial, Goth, Alternative, alongside Hip-Hop and Electronica. Those "zeitgeist" movements can only happen in rebellion toward the previous standards... and every off-shoot and subculture that would resonate down the decades was CULTIVATED and CURATED by elites within that sub space.
Culture and zeitgeist arises out of the clash of ideas and arguments over "good and bad" and human battles for the hearts and minds of listeners (or readers or viewers or whatever audience matters). Having anything and everything without forces... HUMAN forces... trying to sway you with argument and bombast... that isn't culture. That is soup.
The internet throws all of human existence into a giant stew, bubbling away the spice and flavor and strange exhilarations... and provides a thin, bland gruel that we are INHUMANELY fed by machines that tell us this is what we want.
It is not.
I always enjoy Daniel Parris's analysis. This one overlooks one reality. The music we listen to today from the 50s, 60s, and 70s is the best of the era. The slop has long since been forgotten. In a few decades, the same will be true for today's music.
Can you also show that the hits aren't as big as they once were, that even though they're the most popular, outside of maybe the top ten, it probably gets more scattered and niche? Do you have share percentage or just ranking to do something like that?
I've been looking for a simple, clean website to use for daily browsing and quick checks. Most pages I found were either slow or filled with annoying pop‑ups. Then I came across one that works really well – it loads fast, has a tidy layout, and no distractions. If you need a calm online space for routine use, take a look: https://roboforex.com/ I've been using it for a while and it's been consistently reliable and easy to navigate.
Interesting analysis. I've recently been going to metal festivals featuring relatively new bands. The crowds are evenly divided between boomers/genXers on the one hand and 20-somethings on the other. I think that within each "generation" taken broadly, there are subcultures that go against the grain. Genre preferences can override generational chauvinism.
insightful. I was streaming some of the songs in your finding. Would links to those be in your paid subscription along with other interactive data?