🎬 Culture & Hot TakesMediumπŸ—£οΈ Out loud

How to argue about whether music was better in the past

The situation

A nostalgia take with a grain of truth in it. Push back without pretending there's no grain. What do you say?

They open with: β€œMusic peaked in the nineties. Everything now is made by committee for a fifteen-second clip.”

Why it's hard: There's a grain of truth in the nostalgia, so pushing back means acknowledging it without conceding the whole sweeping claim.

Two things you could say

  • β€œThere's a bias hiding in that, though β€” survivorship. We only remember the great nineties songs; the charts were also full of forgettable rubbish we've mercifully forgotten. Compare the best of then to the best of now.”

    Naming the specific bias (survivorship) explains the feeling without granting the claim, and it's far more persuasive than just listing modern songs they'll dismiss.

  • β€œWhat are we actually measuring β€” melody, lyrics, how it made you feel at seventeen? Because a lot of "music was better" is really "I was younger", and those are different arguments.”

    Separating the quality of the music from the listener's age exposes that most nostalgia arguments are about the person, not the art, which reframes the whole thing.

What to avoid

"You just don't get real music." β€” the gatekeeping insult attacks the person's taste and skips the argument; it also proves their point that the older generation is smug, and the survivorship bias never gets pointed out.

The principle

Name the bias β€” survivorship: we only remember the good nineties songs. Then give one current counterexample they'd respect. A named bias plus one example beats a list of ten.

The skill underneath it

More culture & hot takes moments

All 54 situations β†’

You'll know what to say. Saying it is the part that needs practice.

In FlowTalk this one talks back β€” you make your case, the other side answers, and a coach reads what you actually said.

Try this one free