“I was born in 1957, so I was still fairly young during “the 60s” …. and I despised, and continue to despise, the mindset and consequences of that era.”

Yes … My personal opinion is that there was a tremendous difference in attitude and critical stance between the earliest, and the middle to late baby boomers.

In fact, as far as psychological leanings go, I’d probably put the somewhat older pied pipers of the early “we are special” boomers into the same mix, and extend that we-are-special portion of the “boomer” class back into the late war years. And I’d stipulate that it was a phenomenon largely confined to university students.

Although those of us who were born later in that cohort had more thoroughly suburban and mid-century modern lives, there was something about those in the first seven or so years of the “special” cohort who seemed really to believe that they represented destiny itself.

And if you think about it, mid and late boomers were part of a student population glut, a superabundance, a surplus straining the infrastructure and the environment; and by the time of the first Earth Day, we were being reminded by our teachers that we ourselves were the problem, and not the solution embodied in a vanguard class.

Thinking even more critically and reflectively about it, I’d go on to say that even the Korean War era vets that I knew as adults while I was growing up, seemed to lack the dignity, calm, moral straightness and general purposefulness that I saw and took for granted in my close generation’s fathers. The guys who were ten years younger that my own dad, who served in the last year of the war at age 17, were to my young perspective clearly a cut in quality below the men I looked up to as completely reliable and trustworthy.

Frankly, I think it (meaning a recognizably general positive moral effect) was due to the effects of the Depression and the war experience on a certain, relatively narrow bandwidth age group. I don’t believe it did anything to improve the virtuousness of those who were say, over 12 when it hit; and I am persuaded that as soon as its economic effects ended, so did any of the virtue enhancing effects that went along with it.

As a kid in the 60’s, I knew people who were born early in the century, and they seemed to carry no special virtues with them. I knew many who would have been of fighting age in the early 1950’s, and they were nothing great. And for the born ’43 – to 1951 crowd … nothing special across the board there either, though they were convinced that The Spirit of the Age had descended on their heads like a tongue of flame, to enlighten them, free them, and anoint them to judge and to lead.

But as others have pointed out, a great deal of good music was generated. Just who gets credit for that, is hard to say.

The publicity poster for that event was awesome.

Also, like a knowledge of Greek and Roman mythology and the Bible it is an essential foundation for comprehending literature, visual art, architecture and history.

“I may also place a bit of blame again in education..that is music education, which maybe goes along with the general decline in that area.”

How much music education in school did George Gershwin have? Louis Armstrong? Scott Joplin? Carole King? I don’t think any member of the “Talking Heads” picked up an instrument until they met in Art School in their 20s. I’m pretty sure Paul McCartney and Wolfgang Mozart’s only music teachers were their respective fathers. I think you can “make” an artist through education and focused practice, but many, many great artists developed their talent without the benefit of formal instruction. The muse lands everywhere; on poor and rich alike.

I too notice a link with music and some folks drawn to mathematics. Oddly enough, I’ve known a lot of history majors who are also good, natural musicians. Not sure what’s going on there, but the mathematics link I get.

Regarding your students. I’m not sure what is going on there either. Several centuries of popular music have been pumped into a computer database and analyzed for complexity, and it is irrefutable the current stuff is bollocks, vis a vis musical quality. However, that’s pop music. I promise you there are musicians the age(s) of your students who can play blues, country and/or classical counterpoint very well. I doubt the premier conservatories like Julliard, Berklee or Peabody are seeing a drop off in talent, or lack of over-qualified applicants. They may not become youtube stars or show up on a TV talent show, but they’ll end up in the world renowned symphonies, or make a living as studio musicians or play in jazz combos, and they play every bit as well as the greats who came before them. I recently saw Donald Fagen perform Steely Dan songs with a backing band. His band were some of the best musicians I had ever seen live, and none of us would recognize any of their names. I google’d several of them; they’re all active studio musicians (I guess Donald is continuing the Steely Dan tradition).

(It was funny, these musicians were so talented, and so used to the studio, that they didn’t know you’re supposed to make it look hard. I noticed most of the audience were not reacting to their solos, because the musicians made them look too easy, even though they were playing incredibly difficult solos. The guitar players conservatory professor should have taught him to bite his lip, lean back and squint when soloing!)

“… where are the likes of the Moody Blues, the Stones or the Eagles…” I hope you put the Stones in there for comedic effect. The only genre I’ve seen them master is pop. They managed to keep pace with changes in pop; from blues/rock to disco, but they’ve always only been a pop act. The Eagles melded rock with country, and had a few songs with a disco beat too, but there are plenty of great acts similar to them today. The Moody Blues were one of those acts exploiting new technology (keyboards and recording techniques) to great effect. I doubt they’ll last much beyond their generation.

The biggest change in the past 20 years has been distribution, and that, more than anything explains why you don’t believe there are current acts like the Moody Blues, Stones or Eagles. From 1900 to about 2000 the technical barriers to recording, transmitting and distributing music were costly enough that production companies held all the power. If you didn’t get a recording contract your music couldn’t reach a mass audience. If that record didn’t play on the radio you couldn’t break out. If that record didn’t get into juke boxes you couldn’t make it big. There are almost definitely acts contemporaneous to the Moody Blues, Stones and Eagles, and as talented as the Moody Blues, Stones and Eagles, that we don’t know of today because they didn’t land a record deal, or were unwilling to dance to the tune their record company demanded.

Today artists can record, produce and distribute their music at nearly no cost. There are wonderfully talented writers, singers, musicians and writer/singer/musicians making music. Most of it never gets on the radio and, unless you have kids of a certain age, or seek it out independently, you won’t know it’s out there.

As much as artistic talent is wonderful, magical and worthy of praise, there are a plethora of truly talented artists in the world. My wife has barely spent any time thinking about, or studying drawing, yet she is an incredible sketch artist. One of our children also has that ability, and pretty much had it out of the womb. If either one of them devoted more time to drawing and painting, and studying technique, they would certainly attain a professional level. One of my kids is quite a classical pianist. He was always interested in it. When other kids were listening to pop he was teaching himself Russian concerti. If he spent more time at it he could play at a professional level.

I play in a band and often find myself at venues waiting for other acts to finish. They’re almost always quite talented. Often good at keyboards and strings and quite capable singers. There seem to be no shortage of people willing to take no more than $100 for a chance to play 3, 45 minute sets in public. Quite a few of my bandmates have masters degrees in music performance and we’re lucky to get a grand/night for the whole band. And if we won’t play for that, or often less, the club owner has no trouble filling our spot. As amazing as artistic talent is, and it is, it outstrips demand!

Interesting take on technology vs music innovation. However, I think maybe you take it too far. I may also place a bit of blame again in education..that is music education, which maybe goes along with the general decline in that area.

I’ve had several students who are also musicians; seems to go hand in hand with physics and math. So they are doing the usual rock band thing and I asked them if they know a basic blues riff…no, how about some classical counterpoint…no. Can they play a standard country song…didn’t know any. Sad…

Technology innovation can certainly drive new music, but where are the likes of the Moody Blues, the Stones, or the Eagles, who combined different genres to such great effect?

I recall in first grade (that would have been 1963-64), soon after moving back to the suburbs, as she was setting up the film projector (Yay! an easy day), the teacher telling us that we were the most intelligent, best-educated generation ever … and mentally rolling my eyes.

That was very perceptive- and precocious- of you. Most kids would have unreservedly lapped up that praise.

That reminds me of an eye-rolling response I had during my year in Berserkeley. Two adult professionals whom I knew in my work as an eco-activist were talking about the Bay Area. One of them said that in future centuries, the Bay Area would be viewed the way we currently view Renaissance Italy. This was NOT a reference to the many Nobel Prize winning scientists out of U Cal Berkeley, but to the hippies and political radicals in the area. Even as a still wet-behind-the-ears teenager, I knew that was pure hype. Not as perceptive as your first grade reaction, I would add. Your reaction was off the charts.

The foundations of the Participation Trophy culture of recent years was laind in those years.

I recall in first grade (that would have been 1963-64), soon after moving back to the suburbs, as she was setting up the film projector (Yay! an easy day), the teacher telling us that we were the most intelligent, best-educated generation ever … and mentally rolling my eyes.

Regarding the music, I think that was more an accident of the progress of invention, rather than anything inherent in that generation’s blood, or in the politics of the time. But it’s nearly impossible to separate it all out.

In music, like all art, when new technology comes along artists are typically the first to experiment with it and exploit it. The initial efforts are often crude, but refinements come quickly. I think that’s a big reason why we are in such a pop music desert right now; no real innovation in instrumentation or technology in the past two decades, or so.

When production techniques and tool manufacture became consistent enough that instruments could be made that would tune to a certain key and remain in tune through a song we saw the boom of the Baroque era. Composers and artists quickly adapted to the new technology and write incredibly entertaining and complex pieces for a handful of instruments. Which created more demand for good craftsmen and good musicians, resulting in entire symphonies of instruments that composers used to create incredibly entertaining and complex pieces. Of course, the piano, organs and harpsichords happen before, during and after this, and a similar arc happens with them. Almost as soon as the manufacture of a decent organ is possible we have Bach writing and performing pieces that have yet to be topped today. The piano forte was a relatively new instrument when the likes of Mozart, Liszt and Beethoven were stretching the boundaries of the instrument, producing works that are still the sine quo non of the art.

The industrial revolution continues and eventually music manufacture becomes so efficient that a lot of instruments can get to the hands of lay people. There was already folk music on fiddles and concertinas and harmonicas and other cheap instruments, penny whistles…, but now trumpets, upright basses, tubas, saxophones, even pianos could be accessed by most anyone. And we saw incredible innovation for groups of all sizes. There are still pieces from the ’20s, ’30s and ’40s that are as good as any music ever written; complex and melodic with wonderful lyrics.

And electricity and the phonograph and the radio start to play their part. Now musicians can make money aside from simply playing live. And the era of the pop singer begins because microphones allow the singer to be heard above the band. And, as soon as the technology permits this evolution we have a wonderful bevy of fantastic lyricists; Porter, Parker, Berlin, Gershwin…

And a guy named Les Paul starts monkeying around with the electronic pick-ups on his guitar and some kids hear it and that begins a glorious era of guitar rock, which was greatly augmented by new recording technologies being invented simultaneously.

Then Robert Moog invents his synthesizer and thus begins an era of prog rock, also greatly augmented by new recording techniques (digital).

Quite quickly, after each innovation, we get amazing music exploiting the new technology and pushing to the limits of what is acoustically possible.

I think this is the longest gap with no significant, technological breakthrough that we’ve had in pop music innovation since about 1900. And I think that explains the dearth of good, new music. There are still amazing artists exploiting the old methods; classical, jazz, prog, blues, folk, country… but no new genre.

As Steve Winwood sings in Traffic’s, “Low Spark of High Heeled Boys;” “We were children once, just playing with toys.”