i'm a 90s rock kid, it's true.

but, i'm entirely cognizant of the fact that 90s rock was mostly just recycled 60s rock, and the reality is that nobody made any attempt to hide that at the time - it was a part of the marketing apparatus.

so, i'm deeply knowledgeable about 60s rock, too, but it's because i'm a 90s rock kid, not in spite of it - like a lot of people my age, i went back and figured out where it all came from.

there was a shift in technology in the 60s that means it really was a year zero for just about everything. you knew this was going to end up in another marxist rant. but, the technological determinism here is reality - while there are vague precursors in specific types of jazz, you simply couldn't make a record like sgt peppers in the 40s. the technology hasn't advanced since in ways that are nearly as revolutionary. if you know where to look, you can actually find startlingly contemporary sounding electronic music from like 1965. we have a lot more transistors nowadays, but the basic technology is basically the same, and it might not actually be set to advance, in that way, for quite a while - the marxist argument, here, may be that we're stuck with what we've got for decades.

i'm fed up with the endless retro, and i tend to be critical of the lack of emotion in a lot of 80s music, and i also understand how bad 90s pop was, but actual 60s pop (which wasn't the beatles.) was arguably worse than 90s pop, and i tend to put the two periods as endpoints of a single era rather than set them up against each other.