Beatle-Lamia?

Post Reply New Topic

When I grew up in the 80s, there was a fairly common belief that the music of the Beatles was IMPORTANT.

That it transcended the genre of Rock, and had important things to say to everybody. I remember having to sing "Here Comes the Sun" and "Yesterday" in the Gifted classes that I was somehow misassigned to.

Apparently the mighty have fallen. With P2P and iTunes and streaming run amok, their stock has significantly fallen. They seem to have receded into the pack, another "oldies" act competing for Millennial headspace with the likes of Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly. In fact, it can be argued that 70s acts like Pink Floyd, The Doors and Queen are more popular and important---an unthinkable verdict in the 80s', when there were endless radio specials documentaries and even serious academic books about the Beatles, and each of the "Fab Four" had their own cult and culture.

I've been asking random kids about them, and have found that some consider the Beatles a mere boy band a la the Backstreet Boys and New Kids on the Block! Interestingly, it seems that acts like Taylor Swift, Kanye West, and Beyonce have already lost their 'coolness' cred and are considered old hat. It has been a decade for them, I suppose.

I guess my point is you never know about pop culture. Time keeps on slippin' into the future...and Elvis means less than Billie Ellish (sp?). The two or three decades that pass create a barrier to understanding the kids that is only semi-permeable. Our heroes are their overrated cranks.

But I retain a stubborn sense that the Beatles are a unique fascinating group. Was I brainwashed by my arrogant folksie teachers? The bottom line about all of this is that as far as fame goes, Jim Morrison's observation that "the future is uncertain and the end is always near" is spot-on.

Let it roll, I guess.

Boomer music has had its day.  In another 20 years, it won't matter at all.

I was always rather indifferent to The Beatles, but comparing them to the Backstreet Boys is a bit much

I have two teenage kids, you're right about stuff like Pink Floyd, The Doors and Queen and I've seen Creedence getting some attention lately too. Electronic artists like Infected Mushroom and others did some interesting stuff with Doors' songs.

But, keep in mind that you're talking POP music and culture. My kids' friends who don't have parents who listen to music just seem to pick stuff from youtube, iTunes, TV shows etc. But there are still plenty of them who know who Tom Waits is or listen to some really good blues and jazz, way older than The Beatles.

Good stuff can become more or less trendy but doesn't really die, or you wouldn't have young people still listening to classical music

I love the old British music from the 60s. It will always matter to me.

IMHO george martin [RIP] was the beatles' secret sauce. without him, they'd be a pretty good bar band that hit the big time for a bit.

I would still like to get my Motown collection back from whoever stole it.

Motown:
Tragedy.
Many, many extremely talented artists used, swindled, tossed aside, ripped off, forgotten.
Read an HONEST history of The Supremes.
Sickening.
In addition, Roy Orbison wrote some classic, timeless songs, and his voice?
Those high notes?
We don’t have anyone nearly as talented as that man.
He, also, was never as appreciated as he deserved.

Many Motown stars got a bad deal. OTOH, they are now often canonical or even immortal artists, known the world over. That's a little compensation.

I love both Roy Orbison and Buddy Holly, two brilliant songwriters who created timeless work on their own. It's astonishing how fresh songs like "In Dreams" and "It Doesn't Matter Any More" sound after all of these years!

roy orbison was on tour in england, during the height of beatlemania, and he asked nobody in general, "just what IS a beatle?" and without skipping a beat, john lennon tapped him on the should and said "i am." i sure wish the hell he took better care of himself, he basically killed himself with horrible diet, drink and smoke, basically burning the candle at both ends. a pity, as he was a sterling man.

Orbison and Lennon together? Imagine if THEY wrote songs together! Both men were maestros of misery.

Lennon's "Mother" may be the most heart-wrenching song I know

i thought the depiction of lennon in the movie "yesterday" was way off the mark.

i thought the depiction of lennon in the movie "yesterday" was way off the mark.

I never saw that. I read the notorious "Lives of John Lennon" by the late hated Albert Goldman.

That gave Lennon feet of clay

lennon, by his own admission, was a "bit of a bastard."

Even in the Nineties and in the Ohs young folks would hear a Beatles record and say "HEY...who is that new band? Theyre cool!". And they would NOT say that about an Elvis record made only a few years earlier than the Beatles record because the difference in style was just enough of a difference to make a difference - maybe its that hystrionic warble in Elvis's voice- I dunno- but the Beatles were innovative enough to not sound as dated as their American Fifties influences sound today.

i'm very thankful that none of those full-of-themselves "remix artists"* have bastardized beatles recordings like they have elvis, what those cretins have done to elvis is CRIMINAL!
*the usual suspects who take elvis' vocals and drop them into some hiphop or techno garbage and call it great.

what those cretins have done to elvis is CRIMINAL!

I gotta admit, I did dig the London Philharmonic orchestra's "remix" of Elvis tunes...