Post by jlthorpe on Jun 20, 2011 10:01:34 GMT -5
I've been thinking about all the changes that happened with pop music and with the Billboard charts starting in the early 90s (Billboard's change to Soundscan, the rise of hip-hop, the fragmentation of pop radio, etc.), and I'm wondering if we should consider the 90s as the beginning of a new era, separate from the Rock and Roll Era. I can see some pros to this: when it comes to the Billboard charts, chart feats that were broken after Soundscan such as weeks at #1, weeks on the chart can be separated from the pre-Soundscan years when it was much harder to accomplish those feats. It also separates the hip-hop and country acts (Kenny Chesney, Brad Paisley, etc.) whose pop chart careers were boosted by the changes in Billboard from being compared to prior acts who had mainstream pop success (Kenny Rogers, Dolly Parton, etc.). The cons are that for artists who had big careers both before and after Soundscan (Michael Jackson, Madonna, Whitney Houston) will have their success cut in two (probably no different from artists like Frank Sinatra and Nat King Cole in terms of before and after rock and roll), and whereas the rock and roll era resulted in a shift away from the crooners and big band acts, hip-hop didn't really kill rock and roll in a similar way, so it may not justify dividing the two eras.
If we split the current era off from the Rock and Roll Era, what should it be called? The Soundscan Era? The Hip-Hop Era? And what would be the dividing line? The end of 1990 or 1991, or the date of the first Soundscan pop chart (November 30, 1991), or some other date?
If we split the current era off from the Rock and Roll Era, what should it be called? The Soundscan Era? The Hip-Hop Era? And what would be the dividing line? The end of 1990 or 1991, or the date of the first Soundscan pop chart (November 30, 1991), or some other date?
