Do your family/friends share your love for classic TV on DVD/ota? (1 Viewer)

[BobO'Link]

It’s worth keeping in mind - though dear god my wife hates me something special when I say this out loud - that the 90s were 30 years ago (gasp)!

So to put that in perspective - setting aside enthusiasts and hobbyists and just speaking in terms of the average viewers that make up the majority of the population - how many people in 1980 preferred things from thirty years ago vs content that was contemporary to them? That’s not to say that shows from the 50s weren’t available in syndication or that viewers didn’t watch them.

From the 1990s, shows like Seinfeld, Friends and Frasier remain popular in syndication and subscription streaming today. I think we tend not to think of them as being old in the same way, but those shows as just as old now as the 50s sitcoms I watched as a kid were then.

This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think for the most part it’s good that the cultural zeitgeist moves on. The alternative is too limiting. For example, seems like every couple years, Rolling Stone magazine will do an article about the 50 or 100 best bands of all time, and The Beatles are always, always, always #1, and all of the musicians and scholars quoted always say things like “They’re the best band that’s ever been and the best band that ever will be” and “No music can ever be as important as this music is.” I like the Beatles, I consider myself a fan, and I recognize their importance along with the quality of their output. But when there’s that sort of universal push towards canonization like that, I think it has the effect of causing the culture to stagnate, and it deprives us the space and opportunity for another band to come along and be for today’s audience what the Beatles were for an audience sixty years ago. There are always going to be those of us who sincerely care more for something old than something new and I embrace that and am glad there’s room for that. But as important as it is to have a space to honor what came before, I think it’s just as important to allow there to be room for the new.

But the thing is, for The Beatles they're 100% correct. I was 8 when they "invaded" the US. No other band since has had the impact, socially or musically, as The Beatles in spite of dozens of bands being proclaimed by the press as "The Next Beatles!" *All* of those other "next Beatles" bands are now mostly forgotten. A "recent" one was Oasis - when's the last time you heard any of their material being played? My 11yo and 15yo granddaughters are *huge* Beatles fans - and they're not alone in those age groups. I won't presume to say they're as influential today as 60 years ago, however musicians *still* listen to them and copy their style and ideas. Like it or not, they *still* have a huge impact on pop/rock music.

 

[BobO'Link]

You're right, it is much easier to find and watch older shows today, but the average 20-something would probably not look for anything older than the 90s. Which is fine. There is so much content out there today that we can't expect everyone to have seen My Mother the Car in its entirety.

Well... I was a kid when My Mother the Car originally aired - I *loved* Combat, which came on at the same time, so didn't watch My Mother the Car in spite of it being very much a show I'd normally have watched. While I *did* watch a few episodes, and remember liking what I saw, it wasn't until the DVDs were released that I was *finally* able to see the series it its entirety.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Like it or not, they *still* have a huge impact on pop/rock music.

That’s not the part I object to or what I was trying to get at.

What I’m saying is, it’s not a good thing when experts (or the culture as a whole) go beyond praising the Beatles for what they did into saying, as a matter of fact, that no one will write a song as good as any of theirs are. What that’s saying, in another way, is that all of the good songs have already been written and no one should bother. That’s taking a living, breathing art form and making it stagnant, putting it into a mausoleum. And when that starts happening again and again, that’s the beginning of death of culture. When we decide that there’s nothing worth saying anymore, when something that happened 60 years ago is considered so definitive that it doesn’t allow us the opportunity to consider anything else, when we decide a subjective opinion about something’s quality is an objective fact never to be challenged or surpassed, that’s not a good thing.

There’s a big difference between respecting and enjoying the Beatles and saying “We, the gatekeepers of culture, have decided we will not allow for the possibility of something else equally groundbreaking as being recognized as such.”

I think that’s actually part of the reason that rock music is losing some of its space as the dominant popular type of music, because the gatekeepers have been so exclusionary to the possibility that there might be other good music that the general audience moves on without it and beyond it.

 

[Desslar]

It’s worth keeping in mind - though dear god my wife hates me something special when I say this out loud - that the 90s were 30 years ago (gasp)!

So to put that in perspective - setting aside enthusiasts and hobbyists and just speaking in terms of the average viewers that make up the majority of the population - how many people in 1980 preferred things from thirty years ago vs content that was contemporary to them? That’s not to say that shows from the 50s weren’t available in syndication or that viewers didn’t watch them.

From the 1990s, shows like Seinfeld, Friends and Frasier remain popular in syndication and subscription streaming today. I think we tend not to think of them as being old in the same way, but those shows as just as old now as the 50s sitcoms I watched as a kid were then.

This is probably an unpopular opinion but I think for the most part it’s good that the cultural zeitgeist moves on. The alternative is too limiting. For example, seems like every couple years, Rolling Stone magazine will do an article about the 50 or 100 best bands of all time, and The Beatles are always, always, always #1, and all of the musicians and scholars quoted always say things like “They’re the best band that’s ever been and the best band that ever will be” and “No music can ever be as important as this music is.” I like the Beatles, I consider myself a fan, and I recognize their importance along with the quality of their output. But when there’s that sort of universal push towards canonization like that, I think it has the effect of causing the culture to stagnate, and it deprives us the space and opportunity for another band to come along and be for today’s audience what the Beatles were for an audience sixty years ago. There are always going to be those of us who sincerely care more for something old than something new and I embrace that and am glad there’s room for that. But as important as it is to have a space to honor what came before, I think it’s just as important to allow there to be room for the new.

Good points.

I think it's hard to make a direct comparison between the 80s and today in terms of watching older TV shows. Color programs didn't begin until the mid-60s, and by the 80s black and white programs were very rarely broadcast. Therefore, in the 80s most people were probably were not watching any shows older than 20 years.

But today, if one is willing to search, one can easily watch 50 or 60 year old shows online.

As for the Beatles, I agree that it eventually gets tiresome to always focus on the same performers (even if great), and it is sometimes nice to check out some talent/content that one has never seen before. But I would add that doesn't necessarily have to mean brand new content. For example, I have never watched The Man from U.N.C.L.E. series before, so watching it today it would be just as new an experience as watching the Obi-Wan Kenobi series.

 

[BobO'Link]

That’s not the part I object to or what I was trying to get at.

What I’m saying is, it’s not a good thing when experts (or the culture as a whole) go beyond praising the Beatles for what they did into saying, as a matter of fact, that no one will write a song as good as any of theirs are. What that’s saying, in another way, is that all of the good songs have already been written and no one should bother. That’s taking a living, breathing art form and making it stagnant, putting it into a mausoleum. And when that starts happening again and again, that’s the beginning of death of culture. When we decide that there’s nothing worth saying anymore, when something that happened 60 years ago is considered so definitive that it doesn’t allow us the opportunity to consider anything else, when we decide a subjective opinion about something’s quality is an objective fact never to be challenged or surpassed, that’s not a good thing.

There’s a big difference between respecting and enjoying the Beatles and saying “We, the gatekeepers of culture, have decided we will not allow for the possibility of something else equally groundbreaking as being recognized as such.”

I think that’s actually part of the reason that rock music is losing some of its space as the dominant popular type of music, because the gatekeepers have been so exclusionary to the possibility that there might be other good music that the general audience moves on without it and beyond it.

I guess we're just looking at those comments in different ways. I've never taken them as saying "there'll never be songs as good" but rather as The Beatles are the "Greatest Rock Band" in the history of rock with a catalog of music that's never been surpassed *as a whole.* IMHO there are *hundreds* (thousands?) of songs as good as or better than what The Beatles released - and I'm a *huge* fan of The Beatles. In spite of that I can't think of a single other band/group/solo artist that has had the same impact, either socially *or* musically, as The Beatles or a catalog of music that's, overall, of similar quality.

 

[Desslar]

We can’t expect everyone to have seen My Mother The Car in its entirety, but it’s certainly an important factor to consider when choosing a potential mate.

I admire your ambition, but that seems like a formula for longtime bachelorhood.

I'd settle for "has seen more than 5 minutes (not necessarily consecutively) of Monty Python's Flying Circus sometime in life." Maybe my standards are too low.

 

[JohnHopper]

Ten years meant a lot more in the 1970’s or 80’s. The 1990’s were probably the last decade that had much of a distinct flavor.

From the 1990's, I ceased watching the current thing, to be precise in the late 80's. I was much too involved in the Sixties era. The last shows I watched as being current stuff was Magnum, Moonlighting, Wiseguy.

 

[Purple Wig]

From the 1990's, I ceased watching the current thing, to be precise in the late 80's. I was much too involved in the Sixties era. The last shows I watched as being current stuff was Magnum, Moonlighting, Wiseguy.

I did more or less the same. As the 80's progressed my viewing became more and more focused on 50's/60's, Seinfeld was the only show I kept up with throughout the 90's. I might occasionally watch something like Just Shoot Me, but I didn't follow anything.

 

[Sky King]

Hi all,

Most young people won’t watch B/W programs and that may be the reason some companies colorized their early shows, in order to gain a new audience.
I Dream Of Jeannie and Bewitched first come to mind. When done properly, the colorization doesn’t look bad, but for me I prefer to see programs as they first aired.
As for the Beatles, I can remember when they were all in their early 20’s. I grew up on their music and can’t believe the remaining two Beatles are now in their 80’s. I really didn’t start feeling old until I started working with people who couldn’t name the four Beatles.

John

 

[jcroy]

From the 1990's, I ceased watching the current thing, to be precise in the late 80's. I was much too involved in the Sixties era. The last shows I watched as being current stuff was Magnum, Moonlighting, Wiseguy.

I did more or less the same. As the 80's progressed my viewing became more and more focused on 50's/60's, Seinfeld was the only show I kept up with throughout the 90's. I might occasionally watch something like Just Shoot Me, but I didn't follow anything.

The end of my regular tv watching (ie. recording then-current episodes to the vcr or watching live), was sometime in the late 1980s. At the time, the last show I watched in this manner was the first season of the original MacGyver.

After that I didn't really follow any shows/movies, other than what I came aross by semi-random chance which caught my attention (ie. via channel surfing). Otherwise if I did watch anything on television, it was usually a 24 hours news channel playing in the background (such as cnn, fox, etc ....).

The 1990s and early 2000s were largely a "black hole" dark age for me. For long periods of time, I didn't even have a tv at home. (One time the tv screen was kicked in during a party, and I was too lazy to buy a new tv to replace it). For the brief time periods I did have a tv at home, I watched stuff like: the revived Outer Limits, Total Recall 2070, Silk Stalkings reruns, and VH1 "behind the music" documentaries. Shortly after y2k, I didn't have cable (or satellite) service anymore and slightly later didn't have a tv at home anymore. (ie. The ex-wife got all the tv/video equipment in the divorce).

Though slightly later, I did get several discarded crt tv sets sometime in the mid-> late 2000s, from then-local friends who threw out their old crt tvs after buying then-new flatscreens. (The first flatscreen tv and first progressive scan standalone dvd player I got, were discarded "hand me downs" from another then-local friend).

 

[quantumsnoga]

TV shows on DVD/Blu-ray are an entirely different experience to me. Without the commercials, they change their perspective. No longer an interrupted block of vignettes, but a miniature movie.

I just can't go back to OTA TV. Until recently, if I thought a show looked of interest, I'd buy a season set and watch it. Now, i record to a computer and edit out the commercials before watching it.

I have a BIG library of TV shows (1,000+ discs), from the 1950's to 2018 (Timeless). Burke's Law, Perry Mason (original), MASH, Allo Allo, Are you being served, Wild Wild West, Deep Space 9, Miami Vice, Get Smart, The Man From Uncle, The Avengers, Agent Carter, Firefly, Maverick, and on, and on, and on. . .

 

[fdabbott]

Basically, if it isn't a classic tv western, I won't own, buy it or watch it. My friends kid me about my love of old western tv shows, but every weekend, my house is full of people young and old who can't get enough of them and stay until 3 and four in the morning watching the old shows and loving them. Common remarks are I wish they would make fun shows like this now, instead of preaching to us about how we should think, act or say. Telling us why our way of life or views of life isn't good enough.

 

[Desslar]

The end of my regular tv watching (ie. recording then-current episodes to the vcr or watching live), was sometime in the late 1980s. At the time, the last show I watched in this manner was the first season of the original MacGyver.

After that I didn't really follow any shows/movies, other than what I came aross by semi-random chance which caught my attention (ie. via channel surfing). Otherwise if I did watch anything on television, it was usually a 24 hours news channel playing in the background (such as cnn, fox, etc ....).

The 1990s and early 2000s were largely a "black hole" dark age for me. For long periods of time, I didn't even have a tv at home. (One time the tv screen was kicked in during a party, and I was too lazy to buy a new tv to replace it). For the brief time periods I did have a tv at home, I watched stuff like: the revived Outer Limits, Total Recall 2070, Silk Stalkings reruns, and VH1 "behind the music" documentaries. Shortly after y2k, I didn't have cable (or satellite) service anymore and slightly later didn't have a tv at home anymore. (ie. The ex-wife got all the tv/video equipment in the divorce).

Though slightly later, I did get several discarded crt tv sets sometime in the mid-> late 2000s, from then-local friends who threw out their old crt tvs after buying then-new flatscreens. (The first flatscreen tv and first progressive scan standalone dvd player I got, were discarded "hand me downs" from another then-local friend).

This is somewhat similar to my experience. I watched a huge quantity of all genres of TV in the 80s (cartoons/comedies/dramas), but from the 90s onward got very selective and mostly only watched comedies. Network dramas took a drastic turn for the worse in the 90s in my opinion (low budgets and low excitement), and didn't recover until competition from cable and streaming forced the networks to up their game in the 2010s.

Nowadays, I rotate through all decades each week in my TV watching, from the 50s to today. It keeps things fresh.

As far as buying stuff on disc goes, it is mostly pre-1990, except for a few 90s/00s comedies. Very little post-2010 so far.

 

[Gary OS]

There’s a big difference between respecting and enjoying the Beatles and saying “We, the gatekeepers of culture, have decided we will not allow for the possibility of something else equally groundbreaking as being recognized as such.”

But that’s the Baby-boomer way, isn’t it? Nothing of significance began before about 1950, and nothing after the 70’s can compare to ‘Camelot’. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so true.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

But that’s the Baby-boomer way, isn’t it? Nothing of significance began before about 1950, and nothing after the 70’s can compare to ‘Camelot’. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so true.

I definitely have my blind spots like that as well

 

[mackjay]

That’s not the part I object to or what I was trying to get at.

What I’m saying is, it’s not a good thing when experts (or the culture as a whole) go beyond praising the Beatles for what they did into saying, as a matter of fact, that no one will write a song as good as any of theirs are. What that’s saying, in another way, is that all of the good songs have already been written and no one should bother. That’s taking a living, breathing art form and making it stagnant, putting it into a mausoleum. And when that starts happening again and again, that’s the beginning of death of culture. When we decide that there’s nothing worth saying anymore, when something that happened 60 years ago is considered so definitive that it doesn’t allow us the opportunity to consider anything else, when we decide a subjective opinion about something’s quality is an objective fact never to be challenged or surpassed, that’s not a good thing.

There’s a big difference between respecting and enjoying the Beatles and saying “We, the gatekeepers of culture, have decided we will not allow for the possibility of something else equally groundbreaking as being recognized as such.”

I think that’s actually part of the reason that rock music is losing some of its space as the dominant popular type of music, because the gatekeepers have been so exclusionary to the possibility that there might be other good music that the general audience moves on without it and beyond it.

Totally agree with this. As a member of the older crowd, I tire quickly of hearing friends say that today's music/movies, etc are not as good as our great old stuff. The worst part about this is that they don't listen to contemporary music and watch few, or no recent films, therefore they don't actually know how good or bad these things can be. I was never a big fan of most of the 'gods of 50-60s' rock anyway, including the Beatles. So maybe it's easier to keep all that in perspective, for me, and allow for new things to come along. Most of us love to be 'right' about something and it's easy when you completely dismiss the other side of the argument. /// All that said, I mostly watch older films alone and older TV shows, always alone. It's fine with me.

 

[Desslar]

Totally agree with this. As a member of the older crowd, I tire quickly of hearing friends say that today's music/movies, etc are not as good as our great old stuff. The worst part about this is that they don't listen to contemporary music and watch few, or no recent films, therefore they don't actually know how good or bad these things can be.

The Youtube comment sections for classic TV and movie videos are heavily infested with comments like that. It does get tiresome. Why does everything have to be an intergenerational competition?

I say great content can be found in all time periods. And plenty of junk too.

 

[BobO'Link]

I say great content can be found in all time periods. And plenty of junk too.

The older I get the more "junk" I find in current media - all types. Sure, there's still *some* good stuff (I find some fairly regularly). It's just much harder to find than it was in the past. Part of it is the overly PC times we're in currently (heaven forbid you should offend anyone), part is the "diversity, equity, inclusion" trend (which kind of goes hand-in-hand with "don't offend anyone"), and part is algorithms that want to point you to things exactly like you already watch/listen to. All of those kill the adventure of discovery and innovation and slowly start homogenizing everything.

 

[Bert Greene]

But that’s the Baby-boomer way, isn’t it? Nothing of significance began before about 1950, and nothing after the 70’s can compare to ‘Camelot’. I’d laugh if it wasn’t so true.

Ha! I think we've touched on this topic before, Gary. I've always loved listening to the nostalgic musings of folks, from the real old-timers (now long gone) to the relative young'uns. Decades in the collecting circuit and antique shows, I always got a vicarious kick out of the generational experiences and the varied artifacts people clung to. It's all great, and I love the joyfulness that comes through. Yet when it comes to the baby-boom generation, there's indeed a common tendency towards framing their nostalgic favorites as culturally more 'special,' more 'significant,' and carrying more weight in social and historic meaningfulness, than anything that came before or after. There's a self-aggrandizing tinge to it all, which I can easily see being perceived as a bit obnoxious, in all honesty. Often I've wondered if this has been an impediment when trying to introduce and share vintage material to younger crowds.

 

[Desslar]

The older I get the more "junk" I find in current media - all types. Sure, there's still *some* good stuff (I find some fairly regularly). It's just much harder to find than it was in the past.

I suspect there is still a lot of good stuff being produced today, it's just that a declining percentage of it is addressing things of interest to me.

I would say junk has always been easy to find. It's cheap to make and some people will watch anything.

Ha! I think we've touched on this topic before, Gary. I've always loved listening to the nostalgic musings of folks, from the real old-timers (now long gone) to the relative young'uns. Decades in the collecting circuit and antique shows, I always got a vicarious kick out of the generational experiences and the varied artifacts people clung to. It's all great, and I love the joyfulness that comes through. Yet when it comes to the baby-boom generation, there's indeed a common tendency towards framing their nostalgic favorites as culturally more 'special,' more 'significant,' and carrying more weight in social and historic meaningfulness, than anything that came before or after. There's a self-aggrandizing tinge to it all, which I can easily see being perceived as a bit obnoxious, in all honesty. Often I've wondered if this has been an impediment when trying to introduce and share vintage material to younger crowds.

Wouldn't this be true of all generations though? Once they reach that certain age when they are more like to revel in what they know than to seek out new things, today's teenagers will probably act much the same.