- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Beatles: does their music hold up?
Posted on 7/2/12 at 11:12 am to VOR
Posted on 7/2/12 at 11:12 am to VOR
It took me about thirty seconds to find this from The Pew Research Center, although I'm sure there's even better, more detailed research available.
LINK
The reason that the Beatles remain so popular is that they are liked across generations. Those ages 16 to 25 (45% like the Beatles a lot) are just as likely to be fans of the Fab Four as those ages 65 and older (43% like the Beatles a lot). Americans who grew up in the middle of Beatlemania, those ages 50 to 64, are still the biggest fans (65% like them a lot).
Now, can I prove what precise percentage of younger listeners have the Beatles on their playlists? Not at the moment. But maybe I'll keep looking.
LINK
The reason that the Beatles remain so popular is that they are liked across generations. Those ages 16 to 25 (45% like the Beatles a lot) are just as likely to be fans of the Fab Four as those ages 65 and older (43% like the Beatles a lot). Americans who grew up in the middle of Beatlemania, those ages 50 to 64, are still the biggest fans (65% like them a lot).
Now, can I prove what precise percentage of younger listeners have the Beatles on their playlists? Not at the moment. But maybe I'll keep looking.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 11:31 am
2
Posted on 7/2/12 at 12:17 pm to VOR
quote:
It took me about thirty seconds to find this from The Pew Research Center, although I'm sure there's even better, more detailed research available.
LINK
The reason that the Beatles remain so popular is that they are liked across generations. Those ages 16 to 25 (45% like the Beatles a lot) are just as likely to be fans of the Fab Four as those ages 65 and older (43% like the Beatles a lot). Americans who grew up in the middle of Beatlemania, those ages 50 to 64, are still the biggest fans (65% like them a lot).
Now, can I prove what precise percentage of younger listeners have the Beatles on their playlists? Not at the moment. But maybe I'll keep looking
That isn't an article I would expect to see from a think-tank like Pew.
quote:
Those ages 16 to 25 (45% like the Beatles a lot) are just as likely to be fans of the Fab Four as those ages 65 and older (43% like the Beatles a lot)
Anyway, I'm sure the above statement is technically true in that those are how the surveys were answered. But to read anything into it would be rather silly. I'd set the ovr/und for the # of Beatles songs the average 16-25 year old has heard at 4.5.
NOTE: I'd listened to way more than that when I was that age (I'm 32 now), but I've always been sort of a music seeker. I went through a Doors phase when I was 13, and a Jimmy Buffett phase when I was 14. I'm not normal when it comes to music consumption.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 7/2/12 at 12:18 pm to VOR
quote:
Now, can I prove what precise percentage of younger listeners have the Beatles on their playlists? Not at the moment. But maybe I'll keep looking.
frick it, dude, go with anecdotal evidence. All the kids are doing it.
Posted on 7/2/12 at 12:27 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
But to read anything into it would be rather silly
Uhhh, well you don't need to read anything into it. It is what it is.
Look, it's perfectly cool if you don't really dig the Beatles' music. But I think you may be making some assumptions about others in your age group, beyond your friends with the same tastes, that may not be true.
BTW: I still am a smart motherfricker with a wealth of knowledge.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 7/2/12 at 12:32 pm to dukke v
quote:
This makes me a retard???
Ah frick peeeej
quote:
BTW blow it out you candy arse. I never touched the stuff so i could really care less what the difference is.
Posted on 7/2/12 at 1:26 pm to TheDoc
I don't know if it's been said as this is my first post on the music board. I came in here looking for something else, and found this topic that is always a bit of a debate with me and others. I feel like some of the earlier posters in this thread.
I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but I almost feel as if I'm supposed to say that or someone will drop from the ceiling and chastize me. I don't care for them...at all. I have an older brother and brother in law in their 50's that love the Beatles and I give them the benefit of the doubt because it was kind of their era they group in. I occassionally look back on music I used to listen to and don't understand what was wrong with me, i.e. Sum 41 twelve years ago.
My problem with the Beatles, is I feel like there are SO many people who think they're supposed to like them and say they do, because they "changed everything", when those people have NEVER had a Beatles song on of their playlists since they began listening to music. I totally get the hype during the 60's. Young guys doing new music that no one's ever heard and the girls go crazy. Justin Beiber is garnering the same kind of reaction from his fans you could argue.
So in short, no I don't think their music holds up. Would I have liked them if I was alive in the 60's, probably, but probably because it was the cool thing to do.
I am by no means comparing the Beatles and Sum 41.
I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but I almost feel as if I'm supposed to say that or someone will drop from the ceiling and chastize me. I don't care for them...at all. I have an older brother and brother in law in their 50's that love the Beatles and I give them the benefit of the doubt because it was kind of their era they group in. I occassionally look back on music I used to listen to and don't understand what was wrong with me, i.e. Sum 41 twelve years ago.
My problem with the Beatles, is I feel like there are SO many people who think they're supposed to like them and say they do, because they "changed everything", when those people have NEVER had a Beatles song on of their playlists since they began listening to music. I totally get the hype during the 60's. Young guys doing new music that no one's ever heard and the girls go crazy. Justin Beiber is garnering the same kind of reaction from his fans you could argue.
So in short, no I don't think their music holds up. Would I have liked them if I was alive in the 60's, probably, but probably because it was the cool thing to do.
I am by no means comparing the Beatles and Sum 41.
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 7/2/12 at 1:26 pm to VOR
quote:
BTW: I still am a smart motherfricker with a wealth of knowledge.
And a humble motherfricker to boot.
(it's cool...humility is overrated)
This post was edited on 7/2/12 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 7/2/12 at 1:29 pm to VanRIch
quote:
I wouldn't say the Beatles suck, but I almost feel as if I'm supposed to say that or someone will drop from the ceiling and chastize me.
Actually, five uniformed badasses will drop from the ceiling and beat the living shite out of you.
Posted on 7/2/12 at 6:34 pm to bobbyray21
By the way, I'm not a serious musician, but can read music and have played a bit. I completely understand that not everyone likes them personally. However, it is absurd to suggest that their best work doesn't hold up in terms of structure, lyrics and inventiveness. Even if it's not your cup of tea.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 2:47 am to VOR
The Beatles are awesome, still...bobby ray...you suck.
This post was edited on 7/3/12 at 2:48 am
Posted on 7/3/12 at 3:08 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
The Beatles are awesome, still...bobby ray...you suck.
Your mom has beautiful nipples. I can't help myself.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 10:31 am to bobbyray21
This is tongue in cheek. But it does speak to the fact that their work is all pervasive yet still has something to offer.
LINK
quote:
It is not easy to categorize the Beatles’ music; more than any other group, their sound can be described as “Beatlesque.” It’s akin to a combination of Badfinger, Oasis, Corner Shop, and everyother rock band that’s ever existed.
quote:
Only one track lasts longer than three minutes, but structurally, it would appear that the Beatles were more musical than any songwriters who had ever come before them, even when performing material that had been conceived for The Music Man. It’s hard to understand why the rock press wasn’t covering the Beatles during this stretch of their career; one can only assume that the band members’ lack of charisma and uneasy rapport made them unappealing to the mainstream media
quote:
proceeded to make Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, a groundbreaking album no one actually likes. A concept album about finding a halfway decent song for Ringo, Sgt. Pepper has a few satisfactory moments (“Lovely Rita” totally nails the experience of almost having sex with a city employee), but this is only B+ work. It mostly seems like a slightly superior incarnation of The Rolling Stones’ Their Satanic Majesties Request, a record that (ironically) came out seven months after this one. Pop archivists might be intrigued by this strange parallel between the Beatles and the Stones catalogue—it often seems as if every interesting thing The Rolling Stones ever did was directly preceded by something the Beatles had already accomplished, and it almost feels like the Stones completely stopped evolving once the Beatles broke up in 1970. But this, of course, is simply a coincidence. I mean, what kind of bozo would compare the Beatles to The Rolling Stones?
quote:
The opener (Come Together) sucks (seems as crappy as mid-period Aerosmith), but Mr. Harrison follows with a wedding song that effortlessly proves why people who try to quantify visceral emotion should just stop trying.
quote:
These are nice little albums, but I can’t imagine anyone actually shelling out $260 to buy these discs. There’s just too much great free music on the Internet, you know? You might find the instructional, third-person perspective of “Sie Leibt Dich” charming and snappy (particularly if you’re trying to learn German the hard way), but first check out “myspace.org,” a popular website with a forward-thinking musical flavor. That, my rockers, is the future. That, and videogames.
LINK
This post was edited on 7/3/12 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 7/3/12 at 2:48 pm to bobbyray21
quote:
Your mom has beautiful nipples. I can't help myself.
no, you misunderstood. You suck dicks.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 3:15 pm to corndeaux
Have you ever read anything (other than this) by Chuck Klosterman? He's not exactly meant to be taken at face value.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 5:17 pm to BrockLanders
quote:
He's not exactly meant to be taken at face value.
The guy earns his money writing about pop culture- specifically music- and has published at least 2 books filled with his essays. Plenty of people take his opinions seriously.
This particular piece is tongue in cheek- like I said. He is "reviewing" the catalogue of the Beatles. It's absurd. The Beatles are accepted genius- like the OP states- and there's nothing new to say.
I do feel like Klosterman still manages to show his love for their work, although it's tough to tell at times with his snark level turned to 11.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 8:41 pm to corndeaux
quote:
The guy earns his money writing about pop culture- specifically music- and has published at least 2 books filled with his essays. Plenty of people take his opinions seriously. This particular piece is tongue in cheek- like I said. He is "reviewing" the catalogue of the Beatles. It's absurd. The Beatles are accepted genius- like the OP states- and there's nothing new to say. I do feel like Klosterman still manages to show his love for their work, although it's tough to tell at times with his snark level turned to 11.
I'm well aware of Mr. Klosterman's work. I think Fargo Rock City is a great book.
But I don't think he's exactly the kind of person I'd listen to for arguing against the impact/whatever word the Beatles had. I'd at least want to read an essay from someone that was alive at the time and experienced it, but didn't think it was all that hot.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 9:05 pm to Funky Tide 8
quote:
no, you misunderstood. You suck dicks.
Super clever, guy.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 9:11 pm to Dandy Lion
The Beatles suck. If you like them, you are either a female that doesn't shave your legs or a guy who doesn't realize you are gay yet.
Posted on 7/3/12 at 9:52 pm to BrockLanders
Fair enough. 
Enjoyed Eating the Dinosaur. Haven't read Fargo Rock City, but its on the list.
Not sure if you will find what you're looking for as far as 60s Beatles criticism. But you've always got James Bond in Goldfinger
"There are some things just aren't done, such as drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs"
Enjoyed Eating the Dinosaur. Haven't read Fargo Rock City, but its on the list.
Not sure if you will find what you're looking for as far as 60s Beatles criticism. But you've always got James Bond in Goldfinger
"There are some things just aren't done, such as drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. That's as bad as listening to the Beatles without earmuffs"
Posted on 7/4/12 at 4:38 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
AmosMosesAndTwins
Would love to hear who are some of your favorite bands.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News