Love it.

I feel similarly about the quality (don't know what else to call it) of the many songs I listen to from that time, compared to similarly popular songs over the past decades.

Though for me they're also nostalgic in a way which clouds my judgement: I was introduced to vast amounts by my dad in the 90s.

I do think there's some selection bias when we sample tunes that already ran through the filter of their time and 50 to 60 more years of collective filtering.

One group I still didn't know much about and I think many people still don't (paradoxically so) was the Beatles.

When I was 18, a friend lent me every album from Revolver through Abbey Road.

If you haven't listed to those all the way through, you may be in for a treat.

Also, if you want to hear an incredible modern artist's own version of a protest song, check out Sturgill Simpson's Sea Stories. Dude was in the navy and wrote it as part of a concept album dedicated to giving his first child life advice.

Re: selection bias.

I remember FM radio in LA in the early 70s, there weren't really a lot of mediocre songs in the playlists. It wasn't just Classic Rock as we refer to it now, but a bunch of BB King and other blues artists, along with some of what you'd today call Country Rock.

But the "Country" Rock was Allman Brothers, CCR, The Band, and later ZZ Top, etc. The Blues were BB King, John Mayall, Hendricks, etc. The rock was Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Who, on and on. There was just so much that you didn't really need to fill out the playlists. And all of these bands were cranking out an Album a year in that 5-6 year period.

Fascinating.

Do you think (remember) that the incentives for bands were different? I know people listened to more full albums because it'd be tedious otherwise, but was consuming music more of a dedicated activity than it is today?

If so, with record sales being viable income streams, it'd make sense why it'd optimize for more varied, blended, complex, and interesting listens (indexing on FM play for comparison; we're awash with incredible music elsewhere).

I enjoy some music for accompaniment or sing alongs, and then some as a captivating experience (like a movie or even more so a roller coaster).

The blues, jazz, and fusion scenes were vibrant as well and had the same _music as activity_ feature distinct from a dance floor. The audience is expected to actively respond mid song to leads and fills that were moving.

(I know I riffed on my own question but it's not intended to be rhetorical)

I do agree and I also think that bands played to their listeners more rather than being employees of their producers like was more common earlier in the 60s. The bands in the later 60s played their music and then found their fanship, discovering their fame as opposed to having it designed in by the producers.

And as you mention, people used to hang out and listen to records together as a social activity. People cared about what they thought of as truth in music, so you would have arguments about Beck vs. Clapton vs. Hendricks from various standpoints, not just pure talent but honesty, faith to the material, etc.

Not to say that doesn’t happen today, people are still seeking that just as much, it’s just that the industry has changed to relagate music into just another form of “content” to market for ad revenue.

It was 4 years from their first records of blues influenced pop to Sgt Peppers, then 3 more years till they spun apart. There’s a density of creation and artistic evolution there that is incredibly rare.

And my favorite album, Abbey Road, was composed right before the crash. The concluding medley may only exist because they were spinning out.

RIP George Martin, you gave us much.

Your not trying hard enough if you believe timelessness in music stopped in the late 60’s. Every decade since has produced timeless pop music.