The Beatles do not mean as much to kids today as they did to those even a generation ago

Vivian Vance in the sky with diamonds.

As a teen of the 1990s I much preferred reruns of the Monkees.

There's no way The Beatles mean as much to kids today as they did in their heyday. It's not even possible. Most kids don't even know who they are.

[quote]There's no way The Beatles mean as much to kids today as they did in their heyday.

That's not the question posed, though. Over the past, say, 15 years, their stock has significantly fallen (whilst still being high) whilst that of many of their contemporaries and immediate successors have stayed stable or risen.

We didn’t give a shit about the Beatles in the 90s either, OP.

Those dreadful deep dives into the catalog on “Sunday with the Beatles” were boring.

Who wants to stream music from a bunch of seniors named after things like Beatles or Cockroaches?

[quote]I’m just spitballing

I agree. Your entire argument has no basis. I doubt you have any actual facts to back it up. You’d make a great Republican president.

Filed under “who the fuck cares”.

Of course the Beatles wouldn’t have the same impact on the young today as in their heyday — the phenomenon was cultural as well as musical. But kids do know the Beatles music.

[quote] Do Beatles do not mean as much to kids today as they did to those even a generation ago?

Oy.

Why should The Beatles mean anything to "kids today"?

I was born two years before their first hit song (1962) and they never meant much to me. I was aware of them certainly, but too young to recognize them as any part of anything special as people a bit older than me might have done, and simply took them for granted and something more important to my much older siblings.

They closed up shop in 1970, fully a half century ago. Asking that young people today know about The Beatles would have been equivalent of asking me as a young man how much I cared about Fats Waller, Al Jolson, Jimmie Rodgers, or that Vaudeville show with Fred Mertz. I might or might not have rediscovered any of those things on my own, but at best they would have been a subject of interest not of formative value: the way I might have been intrigued the paintings of Kandinsky but not shaped by them.

I know OP is asking in the context of the relative meaning of The Beatles to recent generations' all after the fact of the group, but national trends of nostalgia tend to look back three to four decades, to something that mostly pre-dates their parents, not as far back as five or six decades. Anyone who scratches the surface of popular music history has a lifetimes of information and music to examine; nothing is lost, it's just stuck away. It's only a pity if you're a selfish git and insist everyone inhabit your same bubble of nostalgia or rediscovery.

The Beatles were something in the 1990s because mothers of that generation were crazy about the band and play their songs 24/7 and it was like brainwashing.

No, they means nothing to me since I couldn't care less about what my grandmom was listening.

Why would kids today even care? How many generations ago were they popular?

I watched a daytime quiz program in the UK and a gen Z contestant couldn't name a single Madonna record. Many do not care about anything last decade, let alone last century.

Social media has, for sure, made most pop-culture cue shorter. Liking something from just last year is ancietly out of touch more than ever, and liking something from 2 years ago is “nostalgia.”

[quote]Social media has, for sure, made most pop-culture cue shorter. Liking something from just last year is ancietly out of touch more than ever, and liking something from 2 years ago is “nostalgia.”

Maybe, which would only amplify the ridiculousness of asking young people to care about a pop music group from 1962-1970. — that ended 50 years ago. Only 28.5% of Americans are 55 or older (and 71.5% are younger.)

These girls in NYC in 1964, say they were 15 years old, If they are alive they are in their seventies today. Living a long life is not an excuse to demand that younger people give a shit about your youthful diversions.

[quote]I know OP is asking in the context of the relative meaning of The Beatles to recent generations' all after the fact of the group, but national trends of nostalgia tend to look back three to four decades, to something that mostly pre-dates their parents, not as far back as five or six decades. Anyone who scratches the surface of popular music history has a lifetimes of information and music to examine; nothing is lost, it's just stuck away. It's only a pity if you're a selfish git and insist everyone inhabit your same bubble of nostalgia or rediscovery.

Thank you r12, this is what interested me (though I hope I did not imply it is a pity).

I think marketing, and later the mythology surrounding John Lennon's murder, secured their place in popular culture until Web 2.0. It may be over hype lasting 30 years. I recall that expectations for a Guitar Hero or Garage Band game were way out of wack for what was actually sold. And them being available to stream didn't make a splash. And there was some kind of more recent album of some sort that was outsold by Vera Lynn.

They haven't had a pop culture moment in 20 years. Rolling Stones were used in soundtracks, Beach Boys, Dylan, Johnny Cash, Queen and Elton John biopics were successful. But again, the kids love The Kinks and The Stooges.

[quote]Maybe, which would only amplify the ridiculousness of asking young people to care about a pop music group from 1962-1970. — that ended 50 years ago.

Sweet Jesus, you are missing the point entirely.

How come you whippersnappers don't like MY music?!?!?!?!

The only thing that makes me sad is millenials should have their own music but what do they have? Who can make a Strawberry Fields Forever now?

Young people today care less and less about anything from even a few years ago - especially as the "old white men" and "okay, Boomer" accusations invalidate or even cancel nearly everything in our cultural history

my child calls the Beatles one of two names:

The Rutles Tribute Band

The Moe Howard Quartet

I was born in 85

We sang Beatles songs in preschool- Yellow Submarine, Oobla-Di, Hold Your Hand.

I was very surprised years later to find out they were actually a serious rock band in their later years.

Worse phrased poll ever. OP worse than Mussolini.

People are finally coming to understand they suck and are overrated.

Well, 99% of the people who are in the charts right now will be totally forgotten in 5 years, and the beatles will be remembered anyway

I wasn’t alive when the Beatles were together, but I discovered their as a teen music and as an adult, continue to be enthralled by it. For me, the only other artist I feel like I continually “rediscover” is Kate Bush, who is also unknown to most “young people” of today, especially in the US.

Considering that these youngsters worship the Kardahsians, Taylor Swift, Kanye West, and Billie Eilish, I’m neither surprised nor disappointed they don’t enjoy the Beatles. I leave them to their steadfast belief that Beyoncé is a great artist.

I love a lot of older music some from before the 1920s but the Beatles just aren’t very good. It’s like the Backstreet Boys of the 60s and boomers just pushed them on everyone.

A local gay chorus did a Beatles show in 2013 and the younger members enjoyed it, but couldn't understand why the songs (many of which were new to them) only lasted under 3 minutes. They'd never heard of 45s or that songs were made for radio play. They viewed that show as an oldies show and it forced a bit of a revolt so that the next few shows had to include songs from post-2000. BTW - the show sold poorly but it's hard to say if it was just the content or the fact that the group was on the decline musically and, you know, gay choruses in general...

I grew up with thier songs. I'm actually tired of them by now. A friend and I (same age) were driving in upstate NY 30b years ago and we both said that when they came on the radio.

Popular culture is disposable. that's the whole point.

Never listened to them. My parents are metalheads.

Looking at the Billboard hot 200 chart, the Beatles currently have 2 albums: Abbey Road is at # 83, and their greatest hits is at #84.

Just for the record, The Beatles were the best selling album artists of the year until Taylor Swift dropped her album two weeks ago. More than The Weeknd, DaBaby or Roddy Rich or any of the artists that have dominated the Hot 100. That's nothing to sneeze at for a musical act that recorded it's last album 50 years ago.

Who even cares what the kids are into? I'm sure many haven't heard of Mozart either.

Nothing lasts forever.

The wording of the pole is off and difficult to clearly understand.

[quote] How come you whippersnappers don't like MY music?!?!?!?! —Boomers

The same reason you sneered at Sinatra and jilted Judy Garland.

No, they don’t mean as much today as they didn’t not mean to kids of a generation ago. Not.

I fear for the future.

Bullshit. Gen Xers never gave any fucks for The Beatles. They were too busy with revolting Nirvana and other crap from the 90s.

This is a bit of a straw man argument. Why is it here?

Tastes change. Older popular music never retains its fresh allure for younger audiences, although attention ebbs and flows and informed music listeners always enjoy good music, no matter the age or genre. The focus on the Beatles here ignores these facts and sets up a false "surprise" narrative. Of COURSE a group that disbanded 50 years ago has lost its allure, and with the force and developments of pop and rock continuing in the 1970s it's not surprising other groups and performers took the spotlight. Blaming the tired tropes of McCartney "music hall" and granny music (tell that to "Helter Skelter" listeners - McCartney worked in many forms.) is false. And the essential collaborative nature of the group and its producers led to varied products by individuals after the split, although they all had and have had their successes.

"Kids today" are diverse in their tastes but they also are a bit suckered by a smooth and controlling industry that has had decades to learn its craft. Visual aspects of music releases have been crucial for many years, and the development of entirely new genres since the Beatles split up have led the audience into areas where the Beatles don't fit. Never mind that musical themes and subjects are the same as ever. People schooled and set in the varied hip hop subgenres may hear Bing Crosby when the hear many of the Beatles' work.

Schools cutting the arts first in response to budget crunches doesn't help matters.

R43 OP and others don’t understand what the Beatles did for popular music with their incredible studio innovations - all without computers. Doesn’t matter, they miss out. I’m going back to enjoy Revolver.

Elvis became more of an icon, which is a surprise to me.

[quote]We didn’t give a shit about the Beatles in the 90s either, OP.

Tell that to Oasis and Blur, not to mention the fact that I could hear elements of the Beatles in the music of Scott Weiland and in a number of individual songs by other artists.

Of course they don’t.

It’s sad that the music industry now is just that and nothing more but it was people like the Stones And Zep who created the template for monolithic stadium gigs, merchandise and marketing. Early Hip-hop pioneers looked at that, saw they could do as good if not better and streaming then took any of what spontaneity, radicalism and subversion was left and reduced it to formulaic marketing and, ultimately, algorithms.

Progress.

The Beatles did have a moment in the 2000s, at least marketing wise. I remember seeing displays of Beatles themed items for sale at Target and kids in their teens wearing Beatles t-shirts. Don't know if they knew any of the music though or were just wearing them for the graphics like kids you see today who might be wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt. There's always music nerds who will keep the music of the past remembered, but they're a small minority. I guess the hope is that music like the Beatles will become classic, like the Great American Songbook standards.

Put in in perspective. Caring about them for someone young today would be the equivalent of someone in 1990 caring about popular musicians from 1935. It becomes more and more niche as time moves on.

I'm sure Yoko Ono is behind this somehow.

Legitimately, who cares? Elvis doesn't mean as much to them, either. Neither does Chopin. Did you care about Sinatra when you were a teenager?

Honestly, they do still have rabid fans. I know people like to pretend that people know nothing about what existed before they were born, but that's simply false. Maybe they don't have millions of Beatlemaniacs, but young people are still discovering old music, which... might surprise you, or not.

BREAKING: Kids don't care much for music released 50+ years before they were born.

And 50 years from now, no one will care about their music if you can even call it that.

With what passes for it these days, with any luck it will be forgotten in 30 years. I can barely remember it now.

R54 simply had to add the obvious, which was already stated numerous time.

So much simpler not to read a thread. No, I'm not monitoring the studio - just noting the typicals here adding their useless two cents when the cash register already is full of pennies.

Um, no businesses have coins anymore, R56. Haven't you seen the signs on the door?

I'm tail-end Gen X and the Beatles have never been all that to me, I've never owned any of their music. The Rolling Stones and Jimi Hendrix, however, have always been favorites of mine. The Beatles just never did much for me.

I hope all the Sondheimites are reading this thread. The concept that anyone will be revered 50 years from now, regardless of how popular or influential they were is impossible to predict.

Pop music just doesn't stick around very well.

R56, what's your email address? I'd like to invite you to my next party.

R55 The Beatles will endure. In 50 years, 100 years, people will still be listening.

Taylor Swift? Kanye? Billie Eilsih? Ed Sheehan? Harry Styles? Beyoncé? No.

R62, you can't predict it. Sorry but Beatlemania is already a shadow of what it was even in 2010.

Fookin’ Hell, I’m struggling here. What lice-infested Scouse hovel did Our OP crawl out of, thinking it’s acceptable to come round here spouting rubbish like that?

It’s bad enough those grubby LFC tramps just stole the Prem (in a void season, I remind you). Now there’s some bastard trolls wanting to infect innocent kids with the gobshite music of the bowlcut scumbags those inhuman call idols. Next you’ll be giving knighthoods to carjackers and sticking heads on poles at at Dover. Not having that.

Right, now I’ve got that off me chest - who is it I’ve got to bribe in Westminster to get Liverpudlian culture outlawed as a danger to civilised society, and their filthy city wiped off the map? It’s big enough for a few factories, or a test site, innit?

Beatles4Ever

Totally agree that some of their cultural significance has worn off, to my surprise.

R47 I’m so disgusted by this comment I can’t even muster a rebuttal.

And R47, Have you ever even listened to Blur beyond the greatest hits?

There’s virtually no Beatles influence in their extended catalogue - think more an insane blend of Madness, XTC, mid-period Bowie, The Charlatans, Pavement, PJ Harvey, The Stone Roses, The Pretty Things, Cardiacs, and even a bit parodic-punk like The Stranglers & The Knack.

The Beatles got big marketing pushes in the 90's and early 2000's with the first remasters of their albums on CD in 1993 and the #1 compilation in 2000. All the Boomers re-bought their songs and pushed them on their kids. The Beatles were/are also one of the cornerstones of classic rock radio, but the general power of radio has diminished with streaming stations/subscription services and The Beatles specifically are less dominant than they were as those playlists move further into the 80s and 90s.

Without those two factors, their importance and value to younger generations has naturally diminished. They do still have a great level of cachet though, I saw Paul McCartney at Bonnaroo in 2013 and the very young audience was super into it. But it's only going to lessen as more and more time goes by. There'll be a big spike when McCartney dies though.

They were really overrated.

my dad uses raid i just step on m

The most poorly-worded question/poll, OP.

This is an internet forum not a literary club r72.

A basic grasp of the English language is usually helpful, though.

It's fairly simple as to why bands like the Stones and Led Zep perhaps have a bit more prominence with the current younger generation: they are all (mostly) still alive and (in the case of the Stones) still tour incessantly, keeping their profile aflame across many ages.

The central "lead" Beatle, Lennon, has been dead now for 40 years. The arguably 2nd most key member, Harrison, nearly 20. Love me some Macca, but face it he and Ringo aren't cut to be public superstar figures like the other two were.

If the Stones had stopped touring 20 yrs ago, or if say Keith had bit the dust in the same timeframe, their profile wouldn't be half as high as it is. Mick and Keith work fairly hard to keep those $$ rolling in, whether via touring or royalties.

Isn’t Lennon posthumously cancelled for abusing his son and his mistresses?

I have to admit r76, the posthumous revelations about him spoiled my fandom of him. I had been a big fan as a kid. Today - eh.

I always remember something Grace Slick said in an interview years ago:

"I didn't like the Beatles when they first came out. They were 25 years old and singing 'I want to hold your hand.' When you're 25 you don't want to hold her hand, you want to screw her. I just thought it was really stupid. They didn't get interesting until they took some acid."

The Stones have a higher profile today because so many of their songs were down and dirty and nasty. Young people can always relate to that.

IMHO, the Stones were a much more interesting band.

Uh oh. This doesn't bode well for Lil' Wayne.

[quote]The Beatles got big marketing pushes in the 90's and early 2000's with the first remasters of their albums on CD in 1993 and the #1 compilation in 2000.

The Beatles Anthology CD's/Television special in 1995 was a huge deal as well, with "Free as a Bird" and "Real Love" being the closest thing to a reunion we would get of the group.

The problem is Harrison has been gone for almost twenty years. Paul lust a lot of his luster after Linda passed, and Ringo, well, has always been Ringo, good or bad. I give Yoko credit for really keeping John active in the public eye. But there's only so much you can do with the group now that half of its members have long since passed.

R75, I’ve always loved George Harrison, but the fact that you think Paul McCartney was not one of the two “key members” of the Beatles, to use your terminology, shows that you know nothing about the band.

This is the ultimate "not as big as they used to be" post. Stop worrying about who is bigger and more successful or who has failed or had a downfall.

The Beatles still generate tons and tons of money. And no statistically or economically important amount of young people pay attention to anything culturally other than right now. Other than some Disney hits, Star Wars and Wizard of Oz, it is better than even money that a teenager hasn't seen a movie if it was released before they were born. Same for even twenty somethings (Although maybe you'll get to 50/50 if you throw in titles like The Godfather and Pulp Fiction. But that's it).

[quote]The central "lead" Beatle, Lennon, has been dead now for 40 years. The arguably 2nd most key member, Harrison, nearly 20. Love me some Macca, but face it he and Ringo aren't cut to be public superstar figures like the other two were.

Queen still manages to be a huge seller both in recorded music and on tour with Adam Lambert substituting for Freddie.

Two teens listen to Phil Collins for the first time:

[quote] BREAKING: Kids don't care much for music released 50+ years before they were born.

Unless it's from a Disney movie or [italic]The Wizard of Oz[/italic] perhaps.

The best thing about music in the modern age is that it exists to be discovered. Yeah, yeah, young people don't listen to anything pre-2010, I get it. However, in my experience lots of young people actually listen to music that their favorite rappers, singers, bands, etc. claim as inspiration and go from there. I can how a kid nowadays would listen to one of those god-awful soundcloud rappers, then listen to the idol of one of their rappers, and let's say that rapper is Jay-Z, so they listen to The Black Album... and then eventually maybe stumble on The Grey Album (the mashup by DJ Danger Mouse) and THEN maybe end up listening to The Beatles' White Album, FOR EXAMPLE.

It's not like music from yesteryear is sealed in a hermetic bubble and people born after that time aren't allowed to discover it!!!! I think with things like Spotify nowadays, people who are INTERESTED in seeking out music find music from the past. Maybe that's not The Beatles, but again, I think young people listen to "older" music more than we'd like to think. Just because they aren't at the forefront of our culture doesn't mean that NO ONE is listening or that they don't mean ANYTHING, so there's no need to pitch a fit.

Wait ten years, and then ask the survey participants again.

[quote] The best thing about music in the modern age is that it exists to be discovered. Yeah, yeah, young people don't listen to anything pre-2010, I get it. However, in my experience lots of young people actually listen to music that their favorite rappers, singers, bands, etc. claim as inspiration and go from there. I can how a kid nowadays would listen to one of those god-awful soundcloud rappers, then listen to the idol of one of their rappers, and let's say that rapper is Jay-Z, so they listen to The Black Album... and then eventually maybe stumble on The Grey Album (the mashup by DJ Danger Mouse) and THEN maybe end up listening to The Beatles' White Album, FOR EXAMPLE.

Or they'll just watch [italic]Annie[/italic] again for the umpteenth time.

R89 Okay, bitch, I was trying not to go there but ya got me. They could also discover musical theater.

R35 I believe The Beatles have consistently been a top selling artist during the 2000's and as you say, being one of the top selling acts of the year just prior to Taylor Swift's album drop is pretty darn good for a band that's almost 60 years from their first album release.

In the aughts The Beatles "1" album was the top selling album of the decade(2000-2010). It's also the 4th best selling album in the US per Soundscan from time period of 1991 to now. Per Forbes:

"Half a century after their breakup, The Beatles are still the biggest rock band of 2020, shifting 1.094 million album-equivalent units through the first six months of the year, 326,000 units ahead of the genre’s second-place finisher, Queen. "

Korean boyband BTS, prior to Swift's album, was the only other pop group to move over a million albums this year.

So I would say they haven't had a "pop culture moment" because they are consistently there. Right now the only older act really coming close is Queen and that's thanks to a lot of product placement, soundtracks and of course the movie Bohemian Rhapsody helping to keep them relevant.(And I've always liked Queen so that's OK by me:))

So I have to say I don't really agree with the premise of the OP's post. I'm not saying they are "super trendy with the kids" but it's not all old folks buying that stuff, making them good sellers.

R42 Since when? The Beatles were big in the 90s thanks to Beatles at the BBC and the Anthology TV documentary series. There was a lot of interest in The Beatles.

They suck. There was so much amazing music in the 50’s and 60s and these basic limeys are supposed to be special? Even The Doors and their frat rock of the 60s were better.

I like The Beatles but I love The Beach Boys a lot more i think Queen's legacy has hrown the most. They just had the highest grossing "biopic" in history.

R75 If you think George Harrison was the number 2 mover, I have to say you might be confused(and George is great don't get me wrong, when he was good he was very good, it's impossible to deny the quality of songs like "Something" and "Here Comes The Sun" and "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" among the Beatles catalog and of course many great solo songs as well so in terms of favorite Beatle whatever floats your boat).

It was "Lennon/McCartney" who were the moves and shakers in The Beatles(except on their first album where it was McCartney/Lennon, they were supposed to trade off who was listed first but then John used Brian Epstein's crush on him to get out of that agreement) .

Paul wrote a wide variety of stuff, he wrote and sang some of their most rocking songs, not just ballads, he was a creative and influential bass player. He also for example played the lead guitar or did the guitar solo on a number of Beatles songs, for example on Harrison's Taxman, he played lead guitar, he played lead guitar on Drive My Car, he played lead guitar on Helter Skelter, he played lead guitar on Paperback Writer(on which he also plays a particularly great bassline), and quite a few others during the Beatles years, it's one of the reasons Harrison was so pissed off at him, (though he was apparently fine with him coming up with a solo for Taxman, but in general it pissed him off). He even played drums on a few songs(Dear Prudence is one)

Even during Wings he had plenty of rock songs. Not metal, but they were rock songs. Paul McCartney managed to be in the top act of the 60's and one of the top 2 or 3 acts of the 70s so he basically spent 15 or 16 years at or near the top, not just in name recognition but could back that up with regular and consistent hit albums and singles(21 albums between 1963 and 1979--9 solo or Wings in the 70s, 5 of which went to #1 in the US, most of the others were top 5, all were top 10), a ground breaking tour with the Wings Over the World tour, that's not bad at all. Even in the early 80s he was still having hit records. He's also had something of a late career renaissance in terms of the reception of his work, his last album actually went to number 1, 5 of his last 6 have been top 10. And up until the pandemic he was still playing major concert venues all around the world(arenas and stadiums). That amazingly versatile voice is unfortunately pretty much gone but the music is still there. Paul may never have been the guy doing the rock n roll posing or running around the stage(none of the Beatles were that guy:)), but make no mistake, he's always been a charismatic performer as a singer/songwriter and musician. He definitely very much played a big part in the Beatles early success as performers and personalities, as well as one of the two main songwriters.

[quote]I like The Beatles but I love The Beach Boys a lot more

+1,000,000

I fully take responsibility for my poorly articulated opening post and worse titles.

But I reiterate for people with poor reading comprehension: I am not offended that the Beatles are no longer a touchstone among younger music fans. I actually stopped listening to them much at all after Harrison's death and that was a long time ago. I did however notice that the Stones, The Kinks, The Who and Led Zeppelin have maintained similar or slightly greater acknowledgement and an influence and The Beatles have fallen somewhat in this regard. I wanted a discussion about whether their twee music, the unfashionable hippie politics like "Bed-Ins for Peace" or if their (brilliant, from Epstein onwards) marketing overstated their quality.

Anyway! I agree with the people who state that their inability to tour has an effect.

It’s The Beatles, people. They will be revered forever in music history. Queen will be a footnote, comparatively.

GAYS like GURL singers of the 60s.

Lulu, Dusty, Martha Reeves, THE SUPREMES!

Also, r98, the Ronettes, the Crystals, the Angels, the Shangri-Las, the Shirelles, the Chiffons, the Marvelettes, and LESLEY GORE!

[quote]GAYS like GURL singers of the 60s.

So did The Beatles

The gays loved ME best.

I watched a documentary years ago about the music on a jukebox John Lennon owned (circa1965?) and I remember that "Rescue Me" by Fontella Bass was the only song by a female artist on it.

WHY would The Beatles be popular with kids today? There's only so much that hype and postmortem promotion can do. At this point, it's like hearing old granddad telling you how great Bing Crosby was in the 1930s.

FWIW as a Millennial teen I spent sone years heavily into bebop & Big Band, and since childhood I’ve enjoyed crooners like Jim Reeves & Jolson thanks to my grandparents always playing their records around the house. As far as I can remember I’ve been a fan of psychedelic pop, acid-rock & jangle of the ‘60s & ‘70s, seeking out obscure cuts by myself (credit to P2P download culture). I don’t like much new music of now, though I’m exposed to it via younger siblings & cousins & nieces.

Never could stand The Fab Four, though, except for the live version of ‘Come Together’ they did on the rooftop which was pretty radical for the time.

OP do you live on a scrapheap and eat tyres for breakfast, and all?

I don't understand the Boomer fascination with the Beatles. They were a bunch of rowdy, foul mouthed, pot smoking guys who were banging hookers and playing in shitty clubs in Hamburg. They were discovered by an obsessed Jewish guy (who sucked their dicks and more, apparently), cleaned them up, put them in identical suits, and placed them in front of cameras. End of story.

The Boomers think the Beatles invented soul searching, or something like that.

Did Epstein really get intimate with one or more of the Beatles or is that just rumor?

[quote]Do Beatles do not mean as much to kids today as they did to those even a generation ago?

What kind of shitty grammar is this?

[quote]I don't understand the Boomer fascination with the Beatles. They were a bunch of rowdy, foul mouthed, pot smoking guys who were banging hookers and playing in shitty clubs in Hamburg. They were discovered by an obsessed Jewish guy (who sucked their dicks and more, apparently), cleaned them up, put them in identical suits, and placed them in front of cameras. End of story.

That wasn't the end of the story that was the beginning of the story, you idiot.

& gee, sorry that their manager was a homosexual and, OMG Jewish, offends you.

The Beatles are overrated.

R97, Queen won't be a footnote s long as their songs continue to be a prevelant part of society. Bohemian Rhapsody' We Are The Champions'We Will Rock You., Etc. The Beatles sound dated and old in conparison to then.

I will never forget Paul and Bono being disrespectful to freddie Mercury by by hogging the mic from him at Live Aid.

Pretentious straight assholes were probably pissed he stole the show from them.

Freddie Mercury and Madonna are the only things anyone remembers about Live Aid.

A great reaction video is this guy hearing Hey Jude for first time. He's grooving to it and around 4:40 is where the NaNas start and he has to stop the video as he's so impressed.

It is so strange to see the Beatles, whom were omnipresent on the radio and were covered constantly compared to Kate Bush who got no airplay and appeared once on Saturday Night Live.

It is surprising that the Beatles have faded so much from pop culture. But not surprising that Bush is little known. In fact the surprise is how many young people have heard of her when she was a cult artist without any songs on the charts.

Kate Bush is the best.

Madonna was definitely the highlight of the Philadelphia show. Holiday was my favorite part.

[quote] The Beatles got big marketing pushes in the 90's and early 2000's with the first remasters of their albums on CD in 1993 and the #1 compilation in 2000. All the Boomers re-bought their songs and pushed them on their kids.

My boomer parents did exactly this. As a result, I know every song on Sgt Pepper’s and Rubber Soul. The latter is a great album.

R115 I'm taking you mean in the US, because Kate Bush was a huge selling artist in the UK.

Even so Kate Bush managed to influence a number of US musicians, from Prince and Tupac to the Lilith Fair Squad and neo soul artists like Maxwell.

Kate Bush was never big in America.

The Beatles have gotten me thru the Covid craziness. I just immerse myself in the music and the sheer brilliance takes me out of myself. I play some songs over and over. I believe art can help heal the mind. Not really concerned about their popularity. The music exists and I have access to it and for that I am thankful.

Cancelled or not, God bless John Lennon.

[quote] except for the live version of ‘Come Together’ they did on the rooftop

That was probably “Get Back”.

[quote] Did Epstein really get intimate with one or more of the Beatles or is that just rumor?

It’s been rumored that he and John hooked up on a holiday trip to Spain, but nothing was ever confirmed. There was a movie on the subject.

Kate Bush? Typical gays turning this into a thread about some lame gay icon.

Can someone smash R123 up for his hubris? Cheers.

They suck get over it.

I'm not a Beatles fan at all but this isn't true at all--The Beatles have better streaming numbers than Michael Jackson. Of all the "classic" legacy artists doing well on streaming, Queen is first (by far), The Beatles are second and MJ is third. Sadly and weirdly, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. What a horrible band.

Kate Bush isn’t a gay icon AFAIK, but I love her music. She’s not really known in the US, but I sort of discovered her accidental (long story) in 1990 and have been hooked every since. Like the Beatles, her music gets richer with repeated listens.

Today, most pop hits are written by several people. I always notice this when I look up lyrics online.

I think songs written by one person as the Beatles were (Lennon & McCartney usually wrote alone) and Bush’s are usually more interesting.

"I don't understand the Boomer fascination with the Beatles."

R106, it isn't the Boomers. It's the ones who came after, and after and after, to which The Beatles have been sold to over and over. I'm a Boomer who can barely listen to a Beatles album anymore. That's because I played them 5,000 times - in 1964-70. Today, my Boomer friends still like a song or two because it was the soundtrack of their early life. They moved on decades ago.

I'll bet 95% of the Beatles devotees posting here and in all Beatles threads were born after 1980. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they ain't Boomers.

There are the Beatles.....and then everyone else.

There are many fan accounts on Instagram for them. I doubt they wer created by Boomers. I can’t get any of my Boomer relatives to consider using Instagram!

I think it can be boiled down to, good music will always find an ear with new generations.

I’ve posted on here about my love for The Ink Spots. Do most people my age know them? No. BUT due to one of their songs being used in some popular video game, a whole new generation has discovered them. All you need is exposure. I first heard an Ink Spots song in 2014 and was mesmerized by Bill Kenny’s voice. I had to buy every mp3 and cd I could find. Where none existed, I bought the lp records on eBay and had them converted to CDs.

Art endures.

When the Beatles appeared on the American music scene a month after the Kennedy assassination, they were so radically different from anything I had heard before. I was a great fan of the girl groups and the Beach Boys at that time, and I was so ready for something new in my life.

My parents were, too. "Be My Baby," "Then He Kissed Me," and the latest Lesley Gore singles reminded my mother so much of the assassination, I wasn't allowed to play them any more, under pain of making my mother cry. So everyone was beyond thrilled when my father brought home "I Want to Hold Your Hand," which his barber, joking about "going out of business now," turned him on to at the very end of 1963.

I put it on and played it and played it and played it. Thankfully, I was able to go out and buy "She Loves You," "Please, Please Me," and "Do You Want to Know a Secret?" the same month. There was a backlog that provided two albums as well, Meet the Beatles, on Capitol, and Introducing the Beatles on VeeJay.

And before long, there was the whole British Invasion: the Dave Clark Five, the Searchers, Gerry and the Pacemakers, the Kinks, the Stones. Plus new hits from the Beach Boys and the most interesting new girl group, the Supremes.

And it all just went on and on throughout the '60s. A new Beatles album was released in America during each of my teenage years. And there was even better stuff from the Beach Boys, IMO. Plus the San Francisco sound and the groups that were "coming to the Canyon" in Los Angeles.

It was the most exciting time in music history, as far as I was concerned (not that I'd been around to personally experience any other periods in music history).

And it basically started with the Beatles.

People criticizing them fail to take in the context in which we experienced each new album. They're old hat by now. I feel the same way r128 does now. I have HEARD the Beatles. And although I bought The Beatles in Mono the day it came out, well, I have HEARD the Beatles.

I imagine there will be listeners years from now who will know a joy I have found in older music. I discovered Miles Davis and John Coltrane in 1998. I discovered Mahler and other classical music during the 1980s. I'm so glad there is such a thing as recorded music, in whichever format you choose to listen.

I mean, no shit Sherlock. Young people have their own music. The Beatles are still very relevant in a broad sense, but pop music is meant to reflect young people’s culture. There is always a focus on the new.

[quote]my grandparents always playing their records around the house. As far as I can remember I’ve been a fan of psychedelic pop, acid-rock & jangle of the ‘60s & ‘70s, seeking out obscure cuts by myself (credit to P2P download culture). I don’t like much new music of now, though I’m exposed to it via younger siblings & cousins & nieces

" acid-rock & jangle of the ‘60s & ‘70s" What the fuck is that? You're talking out of your arse.

[quote]Never could stand The Fab Four, though, except for the live version of ‘Come Together’ they did on the rooftop which was pretty radical for the time.

Radical for the time? You really think you're all that, don't you? You're just some pub bore twit that people avoid when they see you coming.

R30, Christopher Guest really should make a movie about a gay chorus. So. Much. Drama.

R133 pedantry and bolshiness for the sake of it are the height of tedium, love. Blocked!

[quote]" acid-rock & jangle of the ‘60s & ‘70s" What the fuck is that?

I was wondering that as well.

[quote][R133] pedantry and bolshiness for the sake of it are the height of tedium, love. Blocked!

Oh, she's blocked me for calling her out on her bullshit. Hope she posts some more, she's hilarious.

Well! No one is going to come following R137 / r133 in the jingle jangle morning!

r131 you are a true music lover, thanks I enjoyed your post.

Thank, R118. I did not know she was big anywhere.

I thought it was weird to bring up such an obscure performer earlier in the thread, but if she is well-known in Britain that would explain it.

[quote]but if she is well-known in Britain that would explain it.

She IS English, Mary.

She was big there for about five years. Tons of radio hits.

[quote]People criticizing them fail to take in the context in which we experienced each new album. They're old hat by now. I feel the same way [R128] does now. I have HEARD the Beatles. And although I bought The Beatles in Mono the day it came out, well, I have HEARD the Beatles.

I'm Gen X and feel the same way about Nirvana and Pearl Jam, among others. I loved them, but never listen to them anymore because it was a certain time and place in my life and I've moved on. I'll always appreciate these bands, but I just cant listen to their music for the millionth time.

^ BINGO!

I think the Beatles Anthology had something to do with the renewed interest in the 1990’s. I was in school back in the 1990’s and I remember being fascinated with old British music from the 60’s for a while. Kids today seem to hold a similar intrigue for music of the early 1990’s today. Nirvana, Tupac, Morrissey....

I wonder how many of these 1990s youngsters know about British Invasion groups OTHER than The Beatles?

Think not, they weren't soled to you for 25 years.

R128 That's actually a really good point. I'm the child of a boomer and I recently went through my father's vinyl record collection (he mostly bought albums from about 1965-1978) and it was fascinating to note the artists he STILL listened to before he died a few years ago. He had pretty much every Beatles album, but did he listen to them very much during the last 20 years of his life? No. Interestingly (to me), he owned a lot of albums by Neil Young, Van Morrison, and Bob Dylan, and he STILL listened to those musicians until he died. Not that those musicians are any better than The Beatles, but I just thought it was interesting. Of course, with those artists, he was able to buy their records as they aged and kept making music. Anyway, I know this comes down to personal taste but hell... in retrospect he even listened to The Doors and The Byrds more as an adult than The Beatles!!! Yet, I kept buying him gifts like Beatles #1's and the Complete Studio Recording Box Set for Christmas, thinking that he just LOVED The Beatles!! I should have read the room!!

R145 The Rolling Stones who? The Who who?

My favorite British invasion album, r145, [italic]Face to Face[/italic] by the Kinks. I have a millennifriend (a real one) who loved getting '60s album recommendations from me. I can't say whether young people like, or have even heard, the Kinks.

BUMP

R141 Lol five years? Do a Google search for her 2014 shows, see how quickly they sold out. Pretty amazing for someone forgotten by the mid 80s.

I mean do they care about Elvis? Are James Dean and Marilyn Monroe still icons? None of these people were of my day, but I knew of them. I think in this day and age, there aren't long lasting legacies anymore. I will say, good music, is good music, no matter what time period it came from.

The OP makes such a ridiculous statement. Of COURSE the Beatles don't "mean as much" to kids today. In truth, most kids today have probably never even heard of them, which is indeed sad. Kids today aren't that much into history, musical or otherwise. That's too bad for them. They're missing a lot.

"Kids today aren't that much into history, musical or otherwise..."

NO kids of ANY ERA are into history. And every parent always says "that's too bad for them. They're missing a lot."

Gay men have always had an interest in pop culture history, as opposed to straight people who don't really care. That's why so many gay guys are familiar with music and movies from generations ago.

R152 Yes, too bad all the baby boomers missed out on listening to Rudy Vallée and Geraldine Farrar when they were young.

[quote]Yet, I kept buying him gifts like the Complete Studio Recording Box Set for Christmas

Did you choose The Beatles in Mono? If you chose stereo, did you buy him the UK box set or the US?

R141, not EVERY British music act is big in Britain.

When I was listening to The Kick Inside, I was also listening to Elton Motello and I do not think he hit it big even in Britain.

R155 Stereo and US box set. Could this be why he rarely listened to it?!

I'm pretty much of their generation - was 15 when they broke up. And even back then, I couldn't understand the appeal. Some of their songs are like children's songs and some remind me of Gilbert & Sullivan or music hall crap: We all live in a yellow submarine; An Octupus’s garden; Bang bang Maxwell’s silver hammer; I am the walrus; All Together Now; Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band; even Hey Jude.

Guess it was over my head but I used to think it wasn't so different from the Lawrence Welk shows my mother used to love.

R157 Here, actually I have to correct myself, I guess the set would have the UK albums? It was this one!

"NO kids of ANY ERA are into history."

Some of them are. Not many, but some. And indeed kids who are indifferent to history are missing a lot. Ignorance is never a good thing.

Try telling them that. Barely anyone here is under 40.

Whatever you fall in love with as a kid, you always love.

KISS still gives me that 'kid at Christmas' excitement.

That was the UK stereo album box set. The mono box set was the one to buy, even though it had fewer albums (no Abbey Road or Let It Be, which were only released in stereo). The sound was better in mono on most albums, as it was the way the albums were recorded (through Sgt. Pepper's, IIRC).

R162 Mr. Sixx, for the last time: we don’t care for music made by clowns, and never will. Stop trying to sell us on it.

If it makes you feel better, your band suck just as much as them, so you can at least say you reached their illustrious heights.

Oh, and stop wearing so much makeup and such ridiculous wigs off-stage. You look like Angelyne.

In the 1960s, I bought mono records because they were a couple of bucks cheaper, but it was also better because the stereo on Beatles records was abominable - vocals came out of one speaker, instruments out of the other. ALL of the Beatles' early stuff was released in mono form when it finally came out on CD because of the shitty quality of the stereo. Three track stereo was crude, though it sounded just fine on other artists' records. I figure the record company created throwaway versions of Beatles albums because they considered them to be a big fad that would quickly cool down. And it would have without the support of other successful rock and pop acts that made the modern contemporary music sound all encompassing - by the late 1960s it wasn't just teenagers buying it.

R163 That explains why I bought the stereo set -- it had Abbey Road and Let it Be.

In retrospect, he probably would have appreciated The Byrds' box set more.

Why are you buying all these Beatkes sets? Don’t you know no one listens to the Beatles anymore? Don’t you know Cardi B has a new song out, Wet Ass Pussy?

OP ^

Who?

BUMP

OP is far too busy gushing over Cardi B on another thread.

They're still the most streamed/bought rock band on Itunes. But that's as much a statement about their greatness as the dearth of modern rock.

Much better worded DL poll:

Does Bonnie does not mean to do as much to kids who do today do as she did do to do those who do even a generation ago?

That's what YOU say, R173