Over the weekend, everyone's favorite Twitter aficionado John Mayer made an observation that lead to an interesting exchange via the social networking site. Yesterday, the guitar giant tweeted, "Listening to the hits channel on Sirius. I will reserve criticism but say that every ninth year of a decade really brings the junk." He went on to point out that the charts in 1979, '89 and '99 are all relatively low-quality, and in the meantime, the "2" years ('82, '92 and 2002) all seem to produce greatness. Mayer uses the example of Warrant to throw 1989 under the bus, which is a brilliant strategy considering that their album Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich was not only gigantic but also represented the predominant trend of the era (that being hair metal). But is it a fair assessment of the decade? And how do those other years measure up?
Mayer is a little unfair to 1979, as the top singles from that year were a mix of disco tracks, one-hit wonders and the first big influences of punk and New Wave. Blondie's "Heart of Glass" bridged the gap between dance music and their brand of icy rock, while the Knack's "My Sharona" was a brief hit that ended up being far more influential than anybody could have imagined. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, so it's possible that in the present tense those songs were utterly unacceptable. But it ended up being okay. There were plenty of duds (Chic's "Good Times," Bee Gees' "Love You Inside Out"), but it was also the year that saw Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" and Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" can't be all bad.
1989 was more questionable. The aforementioned Warrant was all over radio, as was Duran Duran, New Kids on the Block and Debbie Gibson. Using Mayer's theory, 1992 was far superior, featuring hits by Nirvana, U2, R.E.M., TLC, En Vogue and Dr. Dre. But perhaps to counter the greatness, there's a tremendous amount of junk as well: Remember that 1992 was the year that brought us Color Me Badd, some of the worst Madonna singles ("This Used to be My Playground") and the strange trend that was Jon Secada. Still, the good probably outweighs that bad in that instance.
The comparison between 1999 and 2002 is especially interesting because the hindsight is only just starting to form. On the surface, 1999 is way, way behind, because the top singles were tracks like Lou Bega's "Mambo No. 5," Eiffel 65's "Blue (Da Ba Dee)" and Baz Luhrmann's "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)." Meanwhile, 2002 boasts instant classics in Nelly's "Hot in Herre," Eminem's "Lose Yourself," Ashanti's "Foolish" and Usher's "U Got It Bad" (with stuff like Snoop Dogg's "Beautiful," the White Stripes' "Fell in Love with a Girl" and Avril Lavigne's "Complicated" lurking just underneath). Plus, Mayer probably has a particular attachment to 2002 because his own "No Such Thing" and "Your Body is a Wonderland" became big hits as well.
But does that mean that 2009 is inferior? Obviously, we won't know until we have the 2012 charts as a comparison, but Mayer says, "Watch your back for the next Cobain in '12." While the big songs from this year don't seem particularly memorable (especially all that stuff from the Black Eyed Peas), it's impossible to tell what's going to have a life beyond the charts. Because pop history decides how good your song was via a combination of chart success and where it sits in the public consciousness (so it's entirely possible that people will remain attached to "Boom Boom Pow" well into the next decade). But Mayer's theory about the ninth year of decades being a little lightweight for hits seems to hold water. Well played, you wacky boat captain you.
Comments