If someone recorded the oldies medley today

[benm1976]

I’ve been listening to songs from the oldies medley this morning (which I really enjoy), and it occurred to me that if some kids in their mid-20s recorded an oldies medley of songs from around 2013 today, I would think they were ridiculous. I still consider those “new” songs, and I can’t imagine which songs they’d choose.

I wasn’t born until 1976, so I wasn’t around when “Now and Then” came out, but I wonder if anyone thought the same thing about Carpenters at the time.

 

[tomswift2002]

The first time I heard the Oldies Medley was around Christmas 1998 when I found the record at a pawn shop for like 25 cents (this was when the studio albums were unavailable on CD, and all that were available were the various compilations). I found the medley was a highlight of the album—-especially when I think that I first heard this in the era of Brittany Spears and S-Club which…let’s not talk about those.

 

[Harry]

While timewise, you're correct that songs from the late 2000 decade through the mid 2010s would be a similar time-frame for a today's oldies medley, the realities of the flow of music through time is somewhat different. The rock era began in the mid 50s. Prior to that, music was wholly different with big band stuff and really the beginnings of recorded music. Rock took hold in a big way and exploded throughout the 60s. When Carpenters did their oldies medley, they were both remembering those songs from growing up in that era, and fascinated with the fact that "oldies radio" had just been born. Up until that time, an old song from the 50s and/or 60s, the beginnings of rock, was rarely being played on radio, and enterprising radio station owners picked up on that now-underserved format. "Those old songs sounded great ten to fifteen years ago, why not now?"

I'm not sure that there is such a modern-day equivalent to this. There are some modern adult contemporary radio stations that play stuff from the 80s 90s "and today", but would those selections jog any memories like the oldies movement did? I don't know. It's hard for this aging boomer to connect with a lot of that music, let alone feel good when it's replayed.

 

[benm1976]

While timewise, you're correct that songs from the late 2000 decade through the mid 2010s would be a similar time-frame for a today's oldies medley, the realities of the flow of music through time is somewhat different. The rock era began in the mid 50s. Prior to that, music was wholly different with big band stuff and really the beginnings of recorded music. Rock took hold in a big way and exploded throughout the 60s. When Carpenters did their oldies medley, they were both remembering those songs from growing up in that era, and fascinated with the fact that "oldies radio" had just been born. Up until that time, an old song from the 50s and/or 60s, the beginnings of rock, was rarely being played on radio, and enterprising radio station owners picked up on that now-underserved format. "Those old songs sounded great ten to fifteen years ago, why not now?"

I'm not sure that there is such a modern-day equivalent to this. There are some modern adult contemporary radio stations that play stuff from the 80s 90s "and today", but would those selections jog any memories like the oldies movement did? I don't know. It's hard for this aging boomer to connect with a lot of that music, let alone feel good when it's replayed.

I think you're correct that there's no modern-day equivalent, because it's difficult (for me anyway) to differentiate present-day pop songs from ones that were recorded 15-20 years ago. I do think the 80s had a particular sound, but that was much longer ago.

I'm glad they did it...I was just wondering how it was perceived back in 1973.

 

[Murray]

There is actually quite a difference between the music of the early 1960s, and the music from 1973 though. The songs on the oldies medley are all from before the Vietnam War, JFK RFK MLK assassinations, race riots, and the drugged-out hippie era. They reflect the America in which Richard and Karen grew up, a time of peace, prosperity, optimism for the future... before their world essentially blew up around them. I don't normally think of twenty-somethings as being nostalgic. That usually is reserved for us older folks. But so much changed in those ten short years, that I can understand them being nostalgic for "simpler", more innocent times.

Personally, I couldn't tell the difference between the music from 2013 to that from 2023.

 

[GDBY2LV]

Instead of “More Cowbell” it’s “ More Autotune”.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I’ve been listening to songs from the oldies medley this morning (which I really enjoy), and it occurred to me that if some kids in their mid-20s recorded an oldies medley of songs from around 2013 today, I would think they were ridiculous. I still consider those “new” songs, and I can’t imagine which songs they’d choose.

I wasn’t born until 1976, so I wasn’t around when “Now and Then” came out, but I wonder if anyone thought the same thing about Carpenters at the time.

No, the "Now and Then" oldies medley actually fit perfectly with what was going on at the time (May of 1973). This also influenced “Yesterday Once More”.

A Los Angeles FM radio station, KRTH, had just gone all-oldies in October of 1972, focusing on music from that pre-Beatles era of rock and roll. It and WCBS-FM, New York were two of the first all-oldies FM stations in America. And Karen and Richard were listening to KRTH.

The stage musical "Grease" was a huge hit on Broadway and had just begun its nationwide tour in December of 1972.

There were oldies artists who had career revivals in 1972 (Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Rick Nelson),

Contemporary artists were enjoying hit records with pre-Beatles oldies (Donny Osmond's "Puppy Love" and "Go Away Little Girl", Aretha Franklin's "Spanish Harlem", Robert John's "The Lion Sleeps Tonight", Michael Jackson's "Rockin' Robin", The Jackson 5's "Little Bitty Pretty One", Commander Cody's "Hot Rod Lincoln") and still others with oldies-influenced new material (B.J. Thomas' "Rock and Roll Lullaby", Elton John's "Crocodile Rock").

The film "American Graffiti" hit theaters only about 90 days after "Now and Then" hit record stores. And in less than a year, the TV show "Happy Days", which featured that era, would be a big hit.

Karen and Richard actually did this at pretty much the right moment---they weren't early to it, but they managed to ride a nostalgia wave that lasted until mid-decade.

 

[Mark-T]

How about a new oldies medley with songs from a bygone era closer to today? I can't wait to hear Baby Got Back and Poison in one medley!

 

[Michael Hagerty]

How about a new oldies medley with songs from a bygone era closer to today? I can't wait to hear Baby Got Back and Poison in one medley!

I mean, that's clever and all, but the Carpenters didn't mix genres---they didn't throw "Louie, Louie" and "Shout" in there.

In fact, Karen and Richard went for a very narrow window, immediately pre-Beatles ("Fun, Fun, Fun" was released just days before the Beatles' Ed Sullivan appearance). They were songs from 1962, 1963 and very early 1964 from artists that, in their time, were just as safe, wholesome and non-controversial as K&R themselves: The Beach Boys, Skeeter Davis, The Crystals, Jan & Dean, Shelly Fabares, Bobby Vee, Ruby and the Romantics and The Chiffons.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I think you're correct that there's no modern-day equivalent, because it's difficult (for me anyway) to differentiate present-day pop songs from ones that were recorded 15-20 years ago. I do think the 80s had a particular sound, but that was much longer ago.

I'm glad they did it...I was just wondering how it was perceived back in 1973.

This is a normal generational thing. If you went back in time and asked people who were 47 years old in 1973 what they thought of the Carpenters' oldies medley when it first came out, they'd have wondered why those songs. Too recent, too similar (trust me on this, I was actually talking to those people when they called the radio station to complain).

We tend to lock into music around our adolescence. Most people start feeling alienated by the new stuff in their 30s. Men tend to resist new music earlier than women.

 

[Nemily]

I’ve been listening to songs from the oldies medley this morning (which I really enjoy), and it occurred to me that if some kids in their mid-20s recorded an oldies medley of songs from around 2013 today, I would think they were ridiculous. I still consider those “new” songs, and I can’t imagine which songs they’d choose.

I wasn’t born until 1976, so I wasn’t around when “Now and Then” came out, but I wonder if anyone thought the same thing about Carpenters at the time.

You are not the only one @benm1976. Today’s “Hip-hop” music stretches back to 2010 so I suppose everything prior to that is an “oldie’. I am glad I am not the only one whose mind went there lol.

 

[Greg]

Today the cultural equivalence to the 1950's/early 60's renaissance in the 70's would be the Y2K nostalgia scene. You may have noticed teenagers and twenty something's in their combat pants and bucket hats - conjuring the late 90's, early 00's style - and this extends to the music. So a medley now may look something like Britney 'Toxic', Justin 'Like I Love You', Kelis 'Milkshake', Mariah 'Fantasy', Nelly 'Hot in Here' ...etc etc. Like the nostalgia movement of the 70's it's all about channeling a 'simpler' time ... which I suppose to kids who grew up in the wake of 9/11 and the whole new uncertain age of 'global terror' etc, that's exactly what that more carefree era must feel like - though i'm sure not many of us remember it like that, haha.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I think the other factor is that in 1973, on-demand access to music from 10+ years before wasn't a thing. It was rare on the radio, and even at retail, a lot of these records were no longer in print, having been consigned to the cut-out bins a couple of years after their chart runs were over.

Today, any 30-year-old who wants to hear a song from the year they graduated high school can call it up on Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube and a bunch of other services instantaneously. They don't have to wait for mass nostalgia.

 

[David A]

This is a normal generational thing. If you went back in time and asked people who were 47 years old in 1973 what they thought of the Carpenters' oldies medley when it first came out, they'd have wondered why those songs. Too recent, too similar (trust me on this, I was actually talking to those people when they called the radio station to complain).

We tend to lock into music around our adolescence. Most people start feeling alienated by the new stuff in their 30s. Men tend to resist new music earlier than women.

One of the things I've learned is important for me to do whenever things like this come up, is my own "age check" - am I playing the "well, back in MY day..." etc., which all generations seem to do - dogging the new in favor of the old (and familiar). Sure enough, I catch myself at times doing just that.

BUT - that's not always the case. I believe that an objective, dispassionate, non-generational (as in, age of the listener) look at pop music evolution over the last 50 years would find that the level of creativity, musical depth, and variety in pop music (specifically, pop - not rock, Hip Hop, etc., or forms of avant garde musical expression) started changing fundamentally - and for the worse - in the 2000's. I'm not talking about popularity; people like what they like. But while all pop music has to some extent always been formulaic, I think the "formula" has narrowed significantly - if only because there are only so many ways to organize the same pop chords (among other things). Pop music is in some ways limited in format, in my view (if it wants to still be called "pop" music), so perhaps it's simply a matter of time favoring those who came earlier, and had a wider path of exploration within an ultimately limited format.

I'm confident there are others here who disagree with my assessment; hence, the world turns.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I believe that an objective, dispassionate, non-generational (as in, age of the listener) look at pop music evolution over the last 50 years would find that the level of creativity, musical depth, and variety in pop music (specifically, pop - not rock, Hip Hop, etc., or forms of avant garde musical expression) started changing fundamentally - and for the worse - in the 2000's.

The only way to get an objective, dispassionate and non-generational opinion on that would be to bring in someone who'd never heard any of it.

And what good would that opinion be?

 

[David A]

The only way to get an objective, dispassionate and non-generational opinion on that would be to bring in someone who'd never heard any of it.

And what good would that opinion be?

I completely disagree - you'd need someone who HAS heard all of it, and can make legitimate unbiased judgment about creativity, quality, musicianship - a tough task, for sure, as some bias is likely inevitable, but I stand by my view that pop music in the late 60's through 80's in particular, can objectively be defined as superior, in objective, measurable ways.
Edit: I would add that one would need to look at the impact of technology (looping the same choruses or instrumentation over and over in songs (as opposed to playing/singing them uniquely through the course of the song), auto-tune, etc etc has played a role.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I completely disagree - you'd need someone who HAS heard all of it, and can make legitimate unbiased judgment about creativity, quality, musicianship - a tough task, for sure, as some bias is likely inevitable,

Which kills objective and dispassionate.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

Music is an emotional art---it's not meant to be analyzed dispassionately. There are people who cry looking at the Mona Lisa. There are people who are curious, others amused and some who don't get why anyone cares.

 

[Murray]

One of the things I've learned is important for me to do whenever things like this come up, is my own "age check" - am I playing the "well, back in MY day..." etc., which all generations seem to do - dogging the new in favor of the old (and familiar). Sure enough, I catch myself at times doing just that.

BUT - that's not always the case. I believe that an objective, dispassionate, non-generational (as in, age of the listener) look at pop music evolution over the last 50 years would find that the level of creativity, musical depth, and variety in pop music (specifically, pop - not rock, Hip Hop, etc., or forms of avant garde musical expression) started changing fundamentally - and for the worse - in the 2000's. I'm not talking about popularity; people like what they like. But while all pop music has to some extent always been formulaic, I think the "formula" has narrowed significantly - if only because there are only so many ways to organize the same pop chords (among other things). Pop music is in some ways limited in format, in my view (if it wants to still be called "pop" music), so perhaps it's simply a matter of time favoring those who came earlier, and had a wider path of exploration within an ultimately limited format.

I'm confident there are others here who disagree with my assessment; hence, the world turns.

I blame most of this on the increased concentration of ownership in the music business. Fifty years ago, there were a lot more record labels than there are today, including independents like A&M. Herb and Jerry, for instance, could take chances on groups like Carpenters, and give them time to find an audience. Because it was their money at stake, they could afford to take a longer view - they didn't have a corporate board of directors, and impatient shareholders breathing down their necks, demanding that heads roll if quarterly profits failed to meet expectations. Now, there are a handful of multinational corporations that own nearly all the labels - and they are unwilling to take chances. If an artist's first album fails to light up the charts, fails to generate a sufficient profit, they are cut loose. No second chances. The result is, everyone plays it safe, which kills musical variety and innovation - at least as concerns major label "product".

This ties into the situation with radio. Fifty years ago, there were lots of independent radio stations, with their own local program directors, who decided which songs would make the rotation. That's why there were often local, or regional hits, B-sides played instead of the A-side etc. Now, you have a company like Clear Channel (iHeartRadio), which bought up hundreds of radio stations. Programed at company HQ, so the playlist is the same regardless of which city you are listening in. The songs that make the cut, are chosen based on the reaction of people in "focus groups", and how likely they are to switch to another station when a certain song comes up. Songs have to have a "hook" within a few seconds to grab the listeners attention. The result is that everything on commercial radio sounds pretty much the same. If record labels want their product on the radio, they produce what radio wants. If artists want a major label contract, they produce the music that the label wants.

There is still plenty of fresh, creative, innovative music out there. You just won't find it on commercial radio, on mainstream labels, or on the Billboard charts.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

I blame most of this on the increased concentration of ownership in the music business. Fifty years ago, there were a lot more record labels than there are today, including independents like A&M. Herb and Jerry, for instance, could take chances on groups like Carpenters, and give them time to find an audience. Because it was their money at stake, they could afford to take a longer view - they didn't have a corporate board of directors, and impatient shareholders breathing down their necks, demanding that heads roll if quarterly profits failed to meet expectations. Now, there are a handful of multinational corporations that own nearly all the labels - and they are unwilling to take chances. If an artist's first album fails to light up the charts, fails to generate a sufficient profit, they are cut loose. No second chances. The result is, everyone plays it safe, which kills musical variety and innovation - at least as concerns major label "product".

There's a long list of artists that were one-and-done at A&M, several of whom went on to success at other labels. Meantime, Warner Bros. rode with Randy Newman and Van Morrison for years before they saw a hit. Ditto Columbia (at the time the world's biggest record label) with Laura Nyro and Leonard Cohen.

It's a fickle business and has less to do with private ownership vs. publicly-traded than you suggest.

 

[David A]

Which kills objective and dispassionate.

No...as with most things, there are levels of bias. That's human nature and not in conflict with my overall premise.

 

[Vinylalbumcovers]

Just feel the need to throw this in here:

There is plenty of excellent music out there today and there always has been. There has also always been a tremendous amount of dross to wade through to get to the good stuff. I could give examples of both but this isn't the kind of place that needs that; we're a level-headed bunch. Many have it in their heads (usually those who are over forty) that there is no good music anymore and that's entirely untrue. The issue is that the music being made isn't for us anymore. Most commercial artists make music for young people. Those who consume the most music have historically been teenagers and those in their early-to-mid twenties. That's what radio used to aim for (when radio mattered - it doesn't anymore) and the record labels aim for that demographic too.

Speaking as someone who's aged out of that demo, we already had our turn. Let the kids have their fun. It's not hurting us. There are artists who are making music that isn't "young." We can have that. Our parents went though this too. Now, it's our turn...LOL!

I'm still not old, darn it!

Ed

 

[Mark-T]

Just feel the need to throw this in here:

There is plenty of excellent music out there today and there always has been. There has also always been a tremendous amount of dross to wade through to get to the good stuff. I could give examples of both but this isn't the kind of place that needs that; we're a level-headed bunch. Many have it in their heads (usually those who are over forty) that there is no good music anymore and that's entirely untrue. The issue is that the music being made isn't for us anymore. Most commercial artists make music for young people. Those who consume the most music have historically been teenagers and those in their early-to-mid twenties. That's what radio used to aim for (when radio mattered - it doesn't anymore) and the record labels aim for that demographic too.

Speaking as someone who's aged out of that demo, we already had our turn. Let the kids have their fun. It's not hurting us. There are artists who are making music that isn't "young." We can have that. Our parents went though this too. Now, it's our turn...LOL!

I'm still not old, darn it!

Ed

You make a good point, Ed. And I saw it again for myself last night while I watched The Voice.

The final performance by two young men was a riveting ballad named Heartbreak Anniversary. It was so good that I wanted to hear the original. It was by an artist named Giveon. His version had some unique choices to punctuate the lyrics, but it was effectively a full on ballad and excellently done.

 

[Jack A.]

Just feel the need to throw this in here:

There is plenty of excellent music out there today and there always has been. There has also always been a tremendous amount of dross to wade through to get to the good stuff. I could give examples of both but this isn't the kind of place that needs that; we're a level-headed bunch. Many have it in their heads (usually those who are over forty) that there is no good music anymore and that's entirely untrue. The issue is that the music being made isn't for us anymore. Most commercial artists make music for young people. Those who consume the most music have historically been teenagers and those in their early-to-mid twenties. That's what radio used to aim for (when radio mattered - it doesn't anymore) and the record labels aim for that demographic too.

Speaking as someone who's aged out of that demo, we already had our turn. Let the kids have their fun. It's not hurting us. There are artists who are making music that isn't "young." We can have that. Our parents went though this too. Now, it's our turn...LOL!

I'm still not old, darn it!

Ed

That’s a very eye opening post. As someone who is currently in that demographic, I do see that with most of my peers. The music that is currently being made is to them the best music one can ever listen to. I’m a rare exception in my age group in that I’m someone who almost exclusively listens to older music. One day when my teacher brought up the subject of Burt Bacharach, how he had recently died, every single person in the class said “Who’s that?” I was the only one who had actually heard of him (let alone who was familiar with who he was).

So, I can see how different musical tastes are today. I ask anyone in my school if they’ve heard of the Carpenters, and they’ll say no, or that they’ve heard of them, but are not familiar with their music. Just yesterday, me and another girl were discussing our favorite female singers, and she said that hers was Lana Del Ray. I showed her a picture of Karen and said “This is my favorite female singer.” She said that she had never heard of her before.

It’s kind of sad to be honest. But, as you mentioned, we just have to accept that it’s a different time now, and the young generation has moved on to other artists. But as someone who is in that generation, it is a little strange to be the only one to have even heard of the artists I listen to. But, to each his own.

 

[Michael Hagerty]

This week's been a good one for new music on TV (and on NBC):

This week's musical guest on Saturday Night Live was Lil' Yachty. He's a rapper, but he also has a singer, Diana Gordon (who wrote about half of Beyonce's LEMONADE album).

The second performance in the show was this one:



Seventies smooth soul meets---Natalie Merchant (after the midpoint) and a smidge of DARK SIDE OF THE MOON in the final third? Kinda?

Anyway, I loved it.