What Happened to the Generation Gap?

One of my nieces, a precocious, bright, and interesting teenager visited recently. In the course of conversation at dinner one night, I made a joke using a quote from a Michael Jackson tune, and I was surprised that she got the joke and knew the reference. She then said how much she loves Michael Jackson, which surprised me even more. When she was born in 1997, Jackson was already long past his prime, and into the "better living through chemistry and surgery" phase of pop stardom. Then I did the math and got even more confused.

Jackson's greatest success came after the Jackson Five era, beginning with his solo album Off the Wall (1979) and reaching its high point with Thriller (1982), and the also very successful Bad (1987).  He's been a pop culture icon ever since, and deservedly so. If we use the median year (1984) of these three albums as representing his year of greatest popularity, it means my niece has deep knowledge of a pop star whose height of popularity occurred more than a decade before she was born.

I find that odd. When I was 13, I may have had some knowledge of pop stars from a quarter century earlier, but I certainly didn't like any of their music. I was listening to pop music of the time -- Elton John, Led Zeppelin, Hall and Oates, but mostly others in the progressive rock genre like Genesis, Pink Floyd, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and King Crimson. My friends and I simply didn't listen to the pop music of the decade before we were born, much less that of two decades prior.

My niece isn't anomalous in this regard. Since the mid-1990s or so, I've noticed similar trends with many college and high school students at institutions in different states and countries, and I've heard similar comments from colleagues around the country. This week, my nine-year old daughter asked, "Who plays the harmonica solo on Elton John's 'I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues?'" How does she even know who Elton John is (he hasn't had a hit for decades)? She sings along with groups like Heart, Eurythmics, George Michael, Tears for Fears, and others from the '80s hit parade but she also likes Adele, Lady Gaga, and a few other modern pop acts (she hears all of them on the same radio stations, which is curious in and of itself). But how different are those artists from their predecessors? Well, they're different, but the differences are not like those between, for example, Bix Beiderbecke and Herb Alpert, or Ella Fitzgerald and Janis Joplin. (In contrast, the stylistic similarities between Lady Gaga and Madonna are fairly obvious, and have been discussed at length.) There's nothing inherently wrong with artists whose roots are showing, it's just odd because it's impossible to find a pop star from the '60s, '70s, or '80s who sounds and acts so much like a pop star from the '30s, '40s, or '50s (nostalgia or retro groups notwithstanding).

The converse is also true. Older adults are also listening to Lady Gaga. At the 2012 Jazz Education Network Conference, during the Q&A in one of many presentations on building jazz audiences, someone made a disparaging remark about Lady Gaga being "just entertainment," rather than "serious art." This met with loud disapproval from the mostly middle-aged (and older) jazz people in attendance. One man seated a few rows ahead of me responded with a repeated one-word utterance while shaking his head angrily: "Disagree. DIS-A-GREE!!" And I have to admit that I'm part of this phenomenon -- here are the last three concerts I attended: jazz trumpeter Nicholas Payton (I walked out), the Jupiter String Quartet (outstanding concert, one that I will not soon forget), and the german industrial metal band Rammstein (an overwhelming experience, one that I will also not soon forget).

What is going on here? Why are teenagers listening to music that their parents were dancing to 25 years ago instead of rebelling against it? Was the music back then better than today's pop music?  This trend is also noticeable in film, where it seems that soon every TV show, cartoon, and comic book from the '60s, '70s, and '80s has been (or will be) made into a feature film (usually a poor film at that).

It seems as if popular music has achieved some kind of unholy inter-generational equilibrium that is, as far as I can tell, unprecedented. In any case, it is highly disconcerting to me. I would understand if the object of affection was Beethoven or Miles Davis or the Beatles (timeless music outside of the brief pop culture time-span), but that is not the case -- it's Michael Jackson, singing "beat it" or "the kid is not my son." (Both are excellent pop/dance tunes to be sure, but the contrived macho gangland chest thumping and a paternity suit sob story are not likely to wear as well in the decades and centuries to come as, say, Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, or the Beatles' Abbey Road.)

Was Francis Fukuyama right about the "end of history" but wrong about which history it was? I fear that might be case, but I hope I'm wrong.

Photo by xflickrx.

 

Follow Kurt Ellenberger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FraKathustra

Comments

[Trentonjordan]

12:48 PM on 07/01/2012

My nephew is into rap, okay, not surprising, but the only rap he listens to is rap in the 80's, or early 90's and he was born in 1996. Actually, I do not mind that, early rap neither had misogynistic or violent lyrics, with the exception of N.W.A which he also listens to and that in of itself is a 22 year old album.

[S Grey]

04:52 AM on 05/31/2012

Great music is great music. It will transcend time and generations.

[Theresa Gallagher]

12:22 PM on 05/22/2012

This is my 3rd attempt at trying to comment. It appears that this writer is a victim of a generation of media-zombies. Mr. Jackson was bullied, dehumanized, vilified, and mocked for 3 decades, and through all of that, he still made fantastic and awe inspiring music. To say he did nothing worthwhile after Thriller is ridiculous. Please do some research. The albums BAD, Dangerous, History, and Invincible were record breakers. In the 1990's alone, he won numerous awards, made numerous short films, and stunned the world with his Dangerous and History Tours. He played at the 1993 Superbowl Halftime show, and made a record breaking exclusive concert movie for HBO (Live In Bucharest). His lyrics have brought to light many messages of love, peace, social injustice, violence, stewardship of our planet, just to name a few. The Invincible Album is the album of the decade 2000-2010 and is nothing but awe inspiring. Your daughter is very bright and is in tune with a genius the likes of which we will never see again. We are just finding out that he was an visual artist, as well, and had an airport hanger full of his art. He never ceased to amaze us for 4 decades and his legacy will continue for far more decades to come. Yes, I agree that Joe Vogel's books, "Man In The Music" and Inside "Earth Song" will give you an insight as to what you do not know about Mr. Jackson's music.

[Nancy Jensen]

06:57 PM on 05/21/2012

Mr. Ellenberger, perhaps it is time for you to take the clue from your niece and delve into the world of Michael Jackson's music and what it has to offer. Far past his prime in 1977?! Yes, as a child, Michael Jackson was amazingly talented. This innovative musician continued his genius with his Off the Wall album and his Thriller album, the best selling album of all time. His Bad, Dangerous, History and Invincible albums were also record-setters, including moving, inspirational and influential songs such as "Man in the Mirror, Heal the World, Gone Too Soon, Will You Be There, Earth Song, The Lost Children, and Cry, to name a few. People of all races, ages, religions have gravitated toward these
songs, sensing their wisdom, truth, and beauty. Your niece is, as you say, precocious and bright, and therefore has picked up on the beauty and majesty of Jackson's music. I sincerely hope that you will listen to his albums, all of them, and then come back on this site and discuss the wonderful music you have discovered!

[truthmarathons]

11:22 AM on 05/21/2012

I am very surprised that someone who is a jazz pianist and composer would have the opinions shared in this article. It is obvious that Mr. Ellenberger is not nearly as knowledgable as he believes he is when it comes to musical artistry. In the first place, he has a myopic view of Michael Jackson. To say that Jackson achieved his greatest popularity during the "median year of 1984" is to discount the totality of his whole career. Also, it is sad that Mr. Ellenberger feels the need to compare his own mediocre childhood with that of his niece. Although he was unable to appreciate the diversity of music icons in his day, at least his niece underscores his description of her being "precocious, bright and interesting"--she gets it! Mr. Ellenberger just hears "Beat it" and dismisses the genius who was Michael Jackson in his best form; that is, composing and singing social-issue songs like "They don't care about us" or "Black and White". He probably hasn't even heard the laments of "Heal the World", "Earth Song" or "Will you be there". Mr. Ellenberger, take some advice and open your ears, eyes and heart to the greatness you are missing--listen to your daughter and niece--they may be able to lift you out of your self-imposed fog.

[Layne5]

12:42 PM on 05/19/2012

Mr. Ellenberger: You might appreciate this article on the unlikely King of Jazz
http://royayersproject.com/2011/08/michael-jackson-king-jazz/

[rw23]

12:24 PM on 05/19/2012

I also agree with most of the comments here that Mr. Ellenberger has extremely underrated Jackson's music. A closer study would certainly be in order, especially for one who apparently seems to think of himself as a music expert. Given that Michael Jackson is joining the ranks of The Beatles and Bob Dylan as an artist whose music is even being studied now in many universities, he is only making himself look uneducated with such commentary.

[rw23]

12:23 PM on 05/19/2012

But I also think this idea of no generation gap at all is a bit of an exaggeration. I work with young people every day. Most of them know who Michael Jackson is, for sure, and probably know his most popular songs. They know he was someone considered great in his day, but I doubt he is on the Ipods of most of them. Still, a lot of it can be explained due to the fact that the media and our culture has kept him current. The recent Glee MJ episode was one of the highest rated episodes in the show's history. His music is routinely featured on talent search shows like Amercian Idol and The X Factor-where, by the way, these young contestants are expected to know their stuff when it comes to legendary music! While I don't think young teens are necessarily beating the down the doors to download MJ music, they know when they hear it that it sounds good (and technology, perhaps, is another reason why the music of thirty years ago can remain relevant; these songs sounded great then, and they hold up now, thirty years later); it still makes them want to dance.

[rw23]

12:18 PM on 05/19/2012

Also, I think there is another reason, which is that, culturally speaking, we still aren't that far removed from the 80's. We haven't had the kinds of drastic cultural changes that you see when you compare, say, the 80's to the 50's. Trends have come and gone, for sure-but as far as pop culture, there isn't really that huge of a leap from Madonna to Lady Gaga, or from Janet Jackson to Beyonce, or Michael Jackson to Chris Brown (even though I would certainly argue that Jackson was far the superior talent). It's certainly not in the same league with comparing Led Zeppelin to Bill Haley and the Comets.

[rw23]

12:17 PM on 05/19/2012

When I was a teenager, most kids my age were listening to bands like Kiss and disco. But I was discovering big band swing and jazz. I was fascinated with the music of the 20's and 30's, which to me was far more interesting. By the time I had finally come around to disco, the disco craze was over. From there, I embraced the rock music of the 60's and 70's-but this was in the 80's, so once again, I was a step behind the times. The only time I really recall being "current" was during the grunge craze in the 90's-only problem was, by then I was in my 30's, well past the intended demographic of that music. But good music is good music, and knows no age barrier. The upside of this is that, over the years, I learned to appreciate many diverse styles of music across many eras. I don't regret it in the least. It has made me a much more educated, smarter, and well-rounded individual-I daresay, moreso than most of my peers back in the day who couldn't be bothered searching past what was current on the radio. Instead of whining about kids today actually knowing about the music of thirty years ago, he should be proud that the current generation isn't stupid enough to just be force fed whatever comes on the radio.

[rw23]

12:15 PM on 05/19/2012

Amazing how this writer can take a 40+ year music career and boil its essence down to a a couple of lines from "Beat It" and "Billie Jean." This is the hallmark of someone who doesn't know Jackson's music very well-it is always easy to spot, because they will fall back on those two songs as if they are the only ones he ever recorded. Its ironic that while he spends most of the article questioning the tastes of today's youth, he admits being a closed-minded individual when it comes to music. So he was one of those music snobs who, in youth, only listened to what was the "in" music for his crowd? And how is that supposed to be a good thing, for any generation? Besides, the artists he lists suggests he wasn't listening to then-current popular music, but rather its outer fringes. Led Zeppelin was hardly what the average teenager in the early 70's was listening to. They had to go through some channels to "discover" that music. My point being, it doesn't sound as though Mr. Ellenberger was exactly part of the "in crowd" himself, but rather a bit of an outsider. These themselves were artists who hadn't boxed themselves in, but had been influenced by a wide range of styles from earlier eras.

[Miranda Yuen]

11:24 AM on 05/19/2012

I grew up with Michael Jackson. When he was prime, of course, every comment about him praised him which he deserved it. But when he was humiliated in every espect, health issues, lawsuits, allegations, media sprin, he was still making his own music, good or bad, it's up to personal choice. In my eyes, he never stopped. Whether you like him or not, don't delete history, don't try to create something that's not true. Is that what we demanded an honest journalism for Americans, even for the whole world. A lady from the east...

[mnlady]

09:20 PM on 05/18/2012

Michael's music will live and be enjoyed forever and Michael himself will be loved for generations still to come. He was a genius and innovative, brilliant and creative. He didn't stop creating music, film, art - he created it daily and he inspired many artists through mentoring. Don't speak of things you know nothing about and don't disparage Michael. Only a fool would take on Michael's fans who can teach you what you need to know for an informative article. This was not informative or kind.

[beinginformed]

09:06 PM on 05/18/2012

Why the writer should be so surprised that his niece loves Michael's music shows how out of touch he is. Michael Jackson has inspired a whole generation of singers, dancers, songwriters, and film makers....just ask them. His record sales are approaching 1 billion and he is the most downloaded artist in history. The Michael Jackson "Glee" episode was the most watched ever and Cirque du Soleil's Michael Jackson Immortal World tour is currently the highest selling traveling show. "This Is It," the music documentary grossed $260 million in 2009.

"Michael Jackson way past his prime in 1997?" Not hardly. In 1997, Jackson was in the middle of his HIStory Tour which played in 82 countries and was attended by 4.4 million people. Many people are misinformed about Jackson's post Thriller success. Thriller was released in 1982 and Jackson had yet to do his three solo tours. Between 1987 and 2002, 13 million people saw him in concert and he sold 120 million albums. Jackson has 3 solo albums in the top 16 in world wide sales, selling a combined 180 million copies.His last studio album, "Invincible," has sold 13 million copies and was voted best album of the 2000's by Billboard readers. While pedestrian critics are focusing on the Thriller days, Jackson fans from 8-80 are busy listening and dancing to his music and not caring a bit about what the media says. Michael Jackson always said that "great music is timeless."

[liberiangirl1]

11:46 PM on 05/18/2012

Well said thank you!

[Cheryl Ankney Gippert]

06:47 PM on 05/18/2012

I would "guess" that why you're surprised about your niece liking Michael Jackson and his music is because you probably thought all she would know about him is what the media reproted on him for the last decade or two of his life. Sounds to me like she's a lot smarter than the generation before her's. BTW, not everyone believed what the medialoid (mainstream media infected with tabloid journalism)What I find surprising is that when he was vilified in the media, not so long ago, it was ok, even though he hadn't even been to trial, and even after an acquittal nobody seemed to notice or care outside of Jackson's fans, that a man was crucified by the media thanks to sensationalism based on a witch hunt, turned lynch mob. I suspect your niece has done some research, which is readily available online, and discovered the truth, and admires the man Michael Jackson for who he really was. . . so different from what the media would want her to believe. Besides his music as timeless as any great artist's is. Maybe you should do some research yourself on the man and his music. A good place to start is by reading Michael Jackson, The Man in the Music, by Joseph Vogel. HTH.