Recently BBC online ran this story; 'Giving Up my iPod for a Walkman', where a 13 year old wonders why on earth a generation were beguiled by clunky, battery guzzling boxes of hiss and treble. Why, he queries, did we think so much of them?
I don't really think we did. Nor do I think the separation of cultural epochs is valid; certainly the technology is different, but the same people who listened to Walkmans own iPods. This sort of false distinction makes me feel like a dinosaur that's been pushed into a tar pit whilst furry little things gamble about.
I owned two Walkmans during the 80s and early 90s before giving up entirely. At the time I felt like the brand had a personal vendetta, chewing my tapes, dying on me, or just plain not working. It wasn't worth the effort when not there were easier and better ways of listening to music. Truth is that with a Walkman mobility was a strange mix of treat and hassle.
When I was 11 my friend lent me her (she assured me) more reliable Walkman for my exciting first foreign holiday. It chewed my tape up of course, but the situation was worth the risk; 10 whole days somewhere totally alien - I was grateful to be able to take four or five tapes. I could manage now of course, but since I know I don't have to, the limitation is spartan, and that is the benefit of progress.
To come to the point, the BBC junior correspondent, who incidentally writes an fine article, somewhat misses the point, the iPod versus the Walkman? The comparison is invalid in all ways and means. The Walkman generation didn't consume music in the same way, or expect there to be an alternative, we weren't slavishly bonded with the boxes -there was no need. It was a useful-ish bit of gadgetry that could be pulled out when the occasion demanded. The iPod soundtracks life, the Walkman, well when necessary it just, theoretically, made life a little bit more enjoyable.