Subversion Lost

I’ve been thinking about the difference between the pop culture of the 60s and that of the present day. Like with many things it is helpful to look at it in terms of context rather than content.

Back in the 60s, despite the emergent trends, the social context was still very much steeped in the old Victorian structures. Society and its institutions still operated using the well-worn set of values it had inherited from its predecessors. The boomer generation began dismantling those and over the few decades since these values have been in large part replaced. The new context with its high regard for pop culture is the one the boomers set about creating.

The popular music of today is essentially from the same stock as back then. It is the context into which it is presented that is different. Then pop music was a sub-culture. It was rebellious, subversive at times, and represented something the establishment and those in authority didn’t relate to. It’s frivolity and apparent lack of gravitas was tolerated by these older traditions under sufferance at best and at a time when the wider society was still largely deferential to the authority structures.

With these old values having atrophied, the mainstream is now in sync with the attitudes of pop culture. It has no need to be subversive as the thing it might subvert has already keeled over. Good thing or bad thing? Discuss.