I have a theory that music is more guitar-driven and genuine during Democratic presidential rule. Oppositely, Republican presidents bring more superficial and studio-rich music.

Now, I've only noticed it during the Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations because these were the only ones I was alive for.

First, during the Reagan and Bush years: Flock of Seagulls, Hairbands, Culture Club, and other types of keyboard or synthesizer studio over-processing took place. In the case of hair bands, their music took alot of studio magic to come out clean, and their music had a very superficial message.

Second, during the Clinton years (1992): Tool releases their first album, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden arrive. Hairbands and synthesizers die and give way to the resurgence of legends like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (Wildflowers). Weezer releases the Blue album. Woodstock makes its first appearance since the 60's! Overall, music takes more of a guitar-driven, acoustic stance that can be performed without the aid of studio effects.

Third, during the new Bush era: Emo takes hold, but not before modern rock turns into a mush of Rap-Rock, Staind, Nickelback, and Lincoln Park. Now modern rockers are whining about their childhoods and dissing their friends. Little did we know that Emo would become larger than we could ever imagine, making Sugar Ray's bubblegum drivel seem like a legitimate successor to Led Zeppelin.

Finally, Today: A new decision awaits our country and,maybe,record executives. I may be wrong about this political/musical correlation, but only time will tell if we elect a democrat. Sure, there are exceptions to all of these time periods, but I think there's no denying the general trends of the day. If Obama/Biden win and Emo dies within a year of two, more credibility will be lent to this theory. Until the musical climate changes, I cannot play the type of music I respect and expect a warm reception.


Please do not crucify me... This is only a theory and I'm curious to know if anyone else has had these same kinds of thoughts or agrees/disagrees.

I just want music to go back to how it used to be in 60s/70s, when even the pop stars wrote good songs and musicians were the ones writing these good songs. I know that day will come again and I would do anything to help it happen.



TJ of Doppler
www.dopplerband.com
Powered by BandVista.com

"I know when I started I would have been happy to sound like the Beatles or Joe Tex or whoever. You want to sound like most bands, you want to sound like their records and that's how you learn your chops."

- Jon Anderson of Yes

Are you Skreech's brother?

This theory fails.

~Rock-n-Roll "officially" came to be (i.e. White people co-opting R&B and Blues...Elvis, Billy Haley, etc.) during the Eisenhower era. Eisenhower, a Republican president.

~A great number of bands,songs and music from the 60's and 70's which I assume you are referring to happened during Nixon and Ford.
Nixon and Ford, Republican presidents.

~Although LBJ was also president during this time, he was both from Texas (sound familiar?) and despite his support of Civil Rights legislation, Urban Renewal, NASA, Federal Aid to education, and the other positive tenants of his "Great Society" plan, Bubblegum Music was created, the Beatles had pretty much broken up, and Altamont happened. Most of the Billboard Top 10 was littered with cheeseball shit like Sgt. Barry Sadler's Ballad Of The Green Berets and Pop pap like Bobby Golsboro and the prefab, saccrine sounds of the Monkees and the Archies (who were the number one album of 1969).
Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat president.

~During the Reagan and Bush era, Punk, Rap and other forms of Underground music began their foothold on the American Music landscape. Jazz and Blues were finally overcoming the stigma of being "Race" music, and accepted by a larger audience that included many Rock heros of the time, thus making Middle Class White people take notice and enjoy and participate in those styles. This happened during Reagan/Bush.
Reagan and Bush. Republican presidents.

~During the Clinton era, Tool releases their first album (oh wait, that's supposed to be a good thing, right?) Woodstock during this time turned out to be a gigantic frat boy, rape fest, with both the '96 and '99 versions featuring popular musical abominations like Green Day, Insane Clown Posse and of course, Limp Bizkit. The festivals highlights included arson, rape and mindless, random violence. This happened during Clinton.
Clinton was a Democrat president.

~During the new Bush era, Heavy Metal comes back in a strong way, and many of it's more obscure sub-genres work their way into higher profile and other offshoots like Sludge, Doom and Black Metal begin to happen. Desert Rock/Stoner Rock also begin their apperence in both the Underground as well as seeping into the mainstream. The re-emergence and reinterpretation and popularization of Rockabilly, Garage, Traditional or Alt. Country starts too. Not to mention pretty much the forming, playing out and recording of basically all the bands on this board, yours included. This happens during the Bush years.
Bush is a Republican president.

I think Rocking out and the creation/formation of great music happens. Period. In fact history will show that during times of suppresion, depression and economic hardship, wonderful, creative Rocking music happens. Just like the shit music that happens practically in tandem with the good stuff.

Besides, most musicians I know--good or bad-- are too bright to believe that one man, one president, has enough power and control to effect music, much less anything else. That position is basically being a shill for big biz interests, don't you think...?

I think what you are seeing is how much more we noticed those songs and trends. Because they spoke to us of our own dissatisfaction at the time, not because other types of songs didn't exist at the same time that reflected different values.

It's correlation, not causation. I see your point, but they are both just symptoms of larger societal trends. People tire of earthiness and excess and want something simpler in both music and politics (and fashion and literature- you could expand into everything). People get sick of the vapid and need more meat and complexity. Change in general is cyclical. People write protest songs, but just like rock protested button-down 50s, punk protested 60s and 70s pomp; Not just politicans, but culture in general, and most politicians are also voted in by protest vote. At the same time, somebody would have just protested whatever zietgiest happened to be around, so it's a chicken/egg, life-imitates-art-imitates-life thing.

When transitions happen, people think it's a big deal and so they soundtrack it- music becomes charged by those associations. The superficiality you see in new wave/hair bands reflect to me the disillusionment people felt at the time at the failure of hippies and liberals to make things really better, and tiredness of all the new questions and confusion about sex, race, money, etc. not neccessarily because of Reagan, who also reflected that rather than causing it. Reverse that for grunge/alternative/etc and the way people were chafing under that era's dynamic.

And of course, we are talking about popular music and politics, or at least marginally more popular, because there were still democrats and democrats who were powerful during the whole Reagan time, and Clinton had that republican revolution thing or whatever. Music that is "making a comeback" at any given time didn't cease to exist- there were new wave bands in the 90s, we just didn't listen because we were still sick of it. What you are noticing is just what pops into our field of vision. Things ebb and flow as we let oursleves go and reign ourselves in.

I think the Bush era has sucked.

Your observations of the times themselves are so subjective, that it's hard to say anything about your conclusion. For example:

quote:

Originally posted by natedoppler:
First, during the Reagan and Bush years: Flock of Seagulls, Hairbands, Culture Club, and other types of keyboard or synthesizer studio over-processing took place. In the case of hair bands, their music took alot of studio magic to come out clean, and their music had a very superficial message.

That is a totally different world than the one I grew up in. You say 'Flock of Seagulls' and 'Culture Club', and I say 'Flotsam and Jetsam' and 'Armored Saint.'

quote:

Second, during the Clinton years (1992): Tool releases their first album, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden arrive. Hairbands and synthesizers die and give way to the resurgence of legends like Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers (Wildflowers). Weezer releases the Blue album. Woodstock makes its first appearance since the 60's! Overall, music takes more of a guitar-driven, acoustic stance that can be performed without the aid of studio effects.

Third, during the new Bush era: Emo takes hold, but not before modern rock turns into a mush of Rap-Rock, Staind, Nickelback, and Lincoln Park.

Rap-rock is what I think of, when I think of the 1990s. I want to think about Iced Earth, the progression of Savatage, and the resurgence of German power metal, but instead the stuff that you attribute to the Bush2-era is what comes to mind.

What I'm getting at, is that for any time period, anyone can selectively choose the best or worst, and call it the good times or bad times. With enough research and biased selection, and I can probably come up with a theory about how the qualities of the day's music corresponds with the sunspot cycle, or how long it has been since the latest big Apple or Microsoft release, or how many pets I had at the time, or fluctuations in the price of pork belly futures.

someone is showing their age. all music isn't american, is it? and didn't all bush eras suck? i did have more money for gear during democratic presidential rule no matter what kind of music i was playing. i also made a lot more money doing studio work during these periods. how does that, or does that even factor in?

good post! i thought it was entertaining to entertain the thought

quote:

Originally posted by Sloppy:
I can probably come up with a theory about how the qualities of the day's music corresponds with....the price of pork belly futures.

Please elaborate!

Incidentally, I enjoy pork bellies much more when I am listening to good music. Do you think there is any correlation here?

quote:

Originally posted by Sinner:

quote:

Originally posted by Sloppy:
I can probably come up with a theory about how the qualities of the day's music corresponds with....the price of pork belly futures.

Please elaborate!

Geez, Jesse, of all the people to ask -- I thought it would be most obvious to you! Look at the graph on this page and note the red line. For any given moment in time, call that the variable "red." (red-72)/9 (round down) just happens (yeah, right, like it's really a coincidence) to be the number of Stage Llamas your band had at the time. The "Great Llama Deficit" of late 2000 and mid 2002 has an obvious personal significance to you, I'm sure, but in a public forum I won't go into details about those embarrassing experiments.

More important information on the suckiness of music during certain eras and the douchebags that take part in creating it on this page.