|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 6, 2012 15:50:21 GMT -5
Here is a very thought-provoking essay on CNN.com where the writer claims that it is time to let it be as to the 50 Year Anniversary hype of The Beatles and James Bond: www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/showbiz/beatles-bond-anniversary/index.html?iid=article_sidebarSome bullet points from the article: 1. "For a certain kind of middle-aged male, Friday's double golden anniversary, marking the premiere of "Dr. No" and the release of the Beatles' debut single "Love Me Do", offers an unmissable opportunity to wallow in nostalgia." 2. That the idolization of Bond but particularly The Beatles means, "that nothing subsequent can ever live up to the mythologized past, while other influences on the culture of our own era are belittled and ignored." 3. "Modern pop music arguably owes more to the traditions of hip hop and dance music than to 'Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.'" 4. That after initially trying to forge his own identity after the Beatles, even Paul McCartney is, "now strip-mining his own back catalogue in stadiums around the world." 5. "The Beatles remain the band that we can't live and let die, doomed to be recycled as fading photocopies of the original with every incremental improvement in music technology and significant anniversary until one day we can all look forward to high-definition holograms of John, Paul, George and Ringo performing "All You Need is Love" in our living rooms." 6. The "pop culture of both Bond and the Beatles should long ago have been passed over to the custody of historians for safekeeping." 7. Maybe with the Beatles music being reissued in their original format, vinyl records, it is time to "let it be." Is this writer on to something or is he wrong? Are we happy with the music always being recycled to no end and now the music is coming back out on vinyl bucking the inevitable march of technology? Do we need to move on and has our devotion to The Beatles prevented new "Beatles?"
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Oct 6, 2012 17:21:59 GMT -5
I don't know if the good old days were really better. But I was better back then.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Oct 6, 2012 18:33:53 GMT -5
Hip hop is 30 years old and dance is 40 years old. I think our writer friend here is being a little nostalgic himself. He's maybe a little jealous that our nostalgia is better than his. What major acts has hip hop or dance produced?
I think Michael is more of an influence on today's music than anyone. It's more about the dance or the stage show than about the music. Saying the Beatles had an influence on today's music is an insult to the Beatles.
I am not buying the single or the vinyl releases. I'm not doing anything as nostalgia, I'm just trying to get the best copy of some good music or video. I like new bands but haven't seen any who have the talent the Beatles had for Rock, Pop, comedy, stage presence, ...etc.
When you play older music for young kids, you're not saying, "Remember this, wasn't this great?"
There is always good music coming out, but you have to weed through all the crap. Remember bubble gum in the '70s?
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Oct 6, 2012 20:16:47 GMT -5
It's different when an act has stood the test of time. It's not nostalgic, it's timeless.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 6, 2012 23:32:26 GMT -5
doomed to be recycled as fading photocopies of the original with every incremental improvement in music technology and significant anniversary until one day we can all look forward to high-definition holograms of John, Paul, George and Ringo performing "All You Need is Love" in our living rooms Okay, that made me laugh. It's probably true, too. Is this writer on to something or is he wrong? He's on to something, but it's nothing new. It's been obvious for several years that the loose-genre of rock and roll is dead as a cultural force and has, maybe since the mid-90s or even earlier, been on a recycled-loop of postmodernism. Adding to this is the fact that all musics (and a lot of popular entertainment in general) in the digital age are retro. Whether or not this means a new musical style / type / aesthetic cannot possible galvanize the masses ever again is debatable -- but I personally think it can't, mainly due to technological change and consumer on-demand systems of delivery. None of this is The Beatles' fault, of course, but Paul and Ringo do contribute to the morass by going out on tour and playing sets mainly comprised of 45-year-old hits.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 6, 2012 23:51:32 GMT -5
Interesting points all. Yeah I just throw this article out for discussion.
Panther is right as this guy is not saying things we haven't read before and just two weeks ago sayne asked us if we could accept a future Justin Bieber(as just an example by sayne) album as a classic album for all times if in fact it was genuinely groundbreaking. In other words, could we get past our current prejudices about Bieber's career thus far and accept something he might do in the future that is truly great?
I don't think The Beatles are strictly for the museums or historians but the recycling of their music is a disservice. Maybe The Beatles should be like Disney and make the albums unavailable for blocks of years but market the hell out of them for a limited time before pulling them.
Or maybe Apple could release stuff that has never been in the commercial market in a good form before, i.e. LIB, the promo videos, the several professionally shot concerts from around the world, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 7, 2012 0:05:25 GMT -5
There is always good music coming out, but you have to weed through all the crap. Remember bubble gum in the '70s? Of course I remember it. I loved it. Great AM radio music in the early '70s.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 7, 2012 0:07:27 GMT -5
Is this writer on to something or is he wrong? Not only do I think he's wrong, I think he's an a-hole. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 7, 2012 5:58:39 GMT -5
He's maybe a little jealous that our nostalgia is better than his. LOL. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2012 10:11:12 GMT -5
That is funny! Are we conceding then that we are wallowing in nostalgia(if in fact the best music nostalgia) by our mutually shared passion of The Beatles, a group not really in existence since early 1970? Are we living in the past by our religious like devotion to The Beatles? Have we missed other musical tickets to ride in our lives? Do we only believe in yesterday? Or are we persons who if we are going to be passionate about popular music then we will be devoted to, and read about, and talk about the best of popular music, The Beatles? There is the whole big issue of whether The Beatles are still relevant to popular music or our culture? To even young people? If not are we just holding on to the past refusing to climb aboard the present? The good news is that there are still young singer/songwriters who look to The Beatles(and others) for inspiration and there is stunning new music out there. The Avett Brothers and Mumford & Sons(the latter enjoying amazing commercial success in this era of Bieber and Kanye) have heritage trees that have more to do with The Beatles than what dominates the charts today, just to name two. The Avett Brothers appreciate The Beatles for the art of songwriting for sure. I am not saying that these newer artists are trying to sound like the Beatles but they are inspired by them among other artists most of us here admire. That is good news! Still, I must say that I read an article like this from time to time and I worry that I am like some monk in a monastery or knight of some secret order because of my love of The Beatles and perhaps I am seeking to preserve some ancient belief or way of life! Maybe Mick and Keith said it best, that it's only rock and roll but we like it and leave it at that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 7, 2012 12:11:32 GMT -5
That is funny! Are we conceding then that we are wallowing in nostalgia(if in fact the best music nostalgia) by our mutually shared passion of The Beatles, a group not really in existence since early 1970? Are we living in the past by our religious like devotion to The Beatles? Have we missed other musical tickets to ride in our lives? Do we only believe in yesterday? Or are we persons who if we are going to be passionate about popular music then we will be devoted to, and read about, and talk about the best of popular music, The Beatles? There is the whole big issue of whether The Beatles are still relevant to popular music or our culture? To even young people? If not are we just holding on to the past refusing to climb aboard the present? The good news is that there are still young singer/songwriters who look to The Beatles(and others) for inspiration and there is stunning new music out there. The Avett Brothers and Mumford & Sons(the latter enjoying amazing commercial success in this era of Bieber and Kanye) have heritage trees that have more to do with The Beatles than what dominates the charts today, just to name two. The Avett Brothers appreciate The Beatles for the art of songwriting for sure. I am not saying that these newer artists are trying to sound like the Beatles but they are inspired by them among other artists most of us here admire. That is good news! Still, I must say that I read an article like this from time to time and I worry that I am like some monk in a monastery or knight of some secret order because of my love of The Beatles and perhaps I am seeking to preserve some ancient belief or way of life! Maybe Mick and Keith said it best, that it's only rock and roll but we like it and leave it at that. Repeat after me; I am a Beatle Nerd, I wallow in Beatles nostalgia, I wear Beatles T-Shirts, I live in the past when I am listening to Beatles music, I believe I am (foolishly?)preserving an ancient (1960's) way of life when The Beatles existed as a band, I think I know more about them than they do themselves (especially the ones that are dead), I spend time on a Message Board discussing endlessly about Beatles topics with other Nerds, I don't care that my significant other rolls her eyes when I bring up something I have been discussing online at a Beatles Board. And I love every minute of it..... ;D
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2012 12:14:53 GMT -5
Repeat after me; I am a Beatle Nerd, I wallow in Beatles nostalgia, I wear Beatles T-Shirts, I live in the past when I am listening to Beatles music, I believe I am (foolishly?)preserving an ancient (1960's) way of life when The Beatles existed as a band, I think I know about them than they do themselves (especially the ones that are dead), I spend time on a Message Board discussing endlessly about Beatles topics with other Nerds, I don't care that my significant other rolls her eyes when I bring up something I have been discussing online at a Beatles Board. And I love every minute of it..... ;D LMAO! That is classic lowbasso and oh so true! "Are you on that Beatles Message Board again!?" is my spouse's mantra.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Oct 7, 2012 12:41:39 GMT -5
That is funny! Are we conceding then that we are wallowing in nostalgia(if in fact the best music nostalgia) by our mutually shared passion of The Beatles, a group not really in existence since early 1970? Are we living in the past by our religious like devotion to The Beatles? Have we missed other musical tickets to ride in our lives? Do we only believe in yesterday? Or are we persons who if we are going to be passionate about popular music then we will be devoted to, and read about, and talk about the best of popular music, The Beatles? There is the whole big issue of whether The Beatles are still relevant to popular music or our culture? To even young people? If not are we just holding on to the past refusing to climb aboard the present? The good news is that there are still young singer/songwriters who look to The Beatles(and others) for inspiration and there is stunning new music out there. The Avett Brothers and Mumford & Sons(the latter enjoying amazing commercial success in this era of Bieber and Kanye) have heritage trees that have more to do with The Beatles than what dominates the charts today, just to name two. The Avett Brothers appreciate The Beatles for the art of songwriting for sure. I am not saying that these newer artists are trying to sound like the Beatles but they are inspired by them among other artists most of us here admire. That is good news! Still, I must say that I read an article like this from time to time and I worry that I am like some monk in a monastery or knight of some secret order because of my love of The Beatles and perhaps I am seeking to preserve some ancient belief or way of life! Maybe Mick and Keith said it best, that it's only rock and roll but we like it and leave it at that. Repeat after me; I am a Beatle Nerd, I wallow in Beatles nostalgia, I wear Beatles T-Shirts, I live in the past when I am listening to Beatles music, I believe I am (foolishly?)preserving an ancient (1960's) way of life when The Beatles existed as a band, I think I know more about them than they do themselves (especially the ones that are dead), I spend time on a Message Board discussing endlessly about Beatles topics with other Nerds, I don't care that my significant other rolls her eyes when I bring up something I have been discussing online at a Beatles Board. And I love every minute of it..... ;D Beautiful! That's why we come to places like this.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 7, 2012 14:47:58 GMT -5
And proud of it!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 7, 2012 17:24:00 GMT -5
Lowbasso, your nerd manifesto is great. A TV series like The Big Bang Theory, only with old Beatle nerds, would be hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2012 17:35:30 GMT -5
Lowbasso, your nerd manifesto is great. A TV series like The Big Bang Theory, only with old Beatle nerds, would be hilarious. That would be a great sitcom! Hollywood should just look here for the cast of zany characters! Would they dare have a cameo for Heather Mills!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 7, 2012 22:05:49 GMT -5
Lowbasso, your nerd manifesto is great. A TV series like The Big Bang Theory, only with old Beatle nerds, would be hilarious. What a great idea. Imagine if we cast it from this board.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 7, 2012 22:27:53 GMT -5
Lowbasso, your nerd manifesto is great. A TV series like The Big Bang Theory, only with old Beatle nerds, would be hilarious. What a great idea. Imagine if we cast it from this board. In the movie version of Abbeyrd's Beatles Message Board II, Steve would be played by Al Pacino. vectisfabber by none other than the mature Sean Connery. Salma Hayek is the only woman who could do justice to scousette. And in a last chance to redeem himself from the Broadstreet debacle, RTP plays himself.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Oct 7, 2012 23:25:30 GMT -5
LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 7, 2012 23:28:36 GMT -5
Actually, RTP and Joe Karlosi could both be played by the same actor:
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Oct 8, 2012 1:44:55 GMT -5
What a great idea. Imagine if we cast it from this board. In the movie version of Abbeyrd's Beatles Message Board II, Steve would be played by Al Pacino. You must have ESP or something. When my wife-to-be and I started going together, she said I looked like Pacino in "Serpico." No lie.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Oct 8, 2012 1:50:16 GMT -5
The fact that the writer is even talking about the Beatles belies his point. If the Beatles were so unimportant, why even write about them. Also, complaining about people going on and on about the Beatles is like complaining about a ruler still being used for measuring. The Beatles will always be the ruler (or the measure) of things artistically popular. There may become more accurate rulers or rulers made of gold or rulers with fancy attachments, but as long a ruler is 12 inches long, it will still be the standard measurement. So go the Beatles. The writer is also fairly ignorant about how many current artists KNOW the Beatles. Jeez, Jay Z was stoked to perform with Paul at the Grammys and Cee Lo Green knows of them, and on and on. I see lots of kids wearing Beatles' t-shirts, along with the Doors, Pink Floyd, Led Zep, and so on.
Yup, he's jealous that his favorite groups are always being compared to the relics from Liverpool.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 8, 2012 5:50:37 GMT -5
Actually, RTP and Joe Karlosi could both be played by the same actor: And Panther can be played by:
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 8, 2012 8:24:55 GMT -5
I don't blame Joe for not liking that comparison because no one in the U.S. wants to be compared to Rush anymore(even those on the Right)but as always Joe can take as well as he can give. Let's not fight gents. Each has gotten his zinger in. I started this silliness for fun on what was truly a neat idea by scousette for a sitcom: Beatles fanatics among the rest of the world. That is a tried and tested formula for TV sitcoms as scousette noted my favorite sitcom The Big Bang Theory and it goes back to The Beverly Hillbillies: folks who don't seemingly fit in their environment yet ultimately are wiser than the rest. Yeah that's us, a bunch of fools on the hill! ;D sayne, I bet the writer was a first generation Rolling Stones fan(although he looks too young for that)! He is in the least a U2 or REM fanatic! His points might carry more weight if he was a Beatles fan looking inward rather than a Beatles' detractor with sour grapes. For what it is worth, if I was to be in the movie version of the Message Board, I would like to think I could be portrayed by only one man, sadly no longer with us and since he is not then I'll settle for After all, I am married to my own "Vera" who makes me keep my vinyl record albums in storage at my office, won't let me play any Brian Wilson, Partridge Family or Yoko Ono in the car and when Liverpool took requests for songs at the 1997 Chicago Beatlefest, gave me the look of death when I shouted "Revolution No. 9" that otherwise drew a hearty laugh among the knowing.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Oct 8, 2012 8:38:20 GMT -5
I don't blame Joe for not liking that comparison because no one in the U.S. wants to be compared to Rush anymore(even those on the Right)but as always Joe can take as well as he can give. Let's not fight gents. Each has gotten his zinger in. I started this silliness for fun on what was truly a neat idea by scousette for a sitcom: Beatles fanatics among the rest of the world. That is a tried and tested formula for TV sitcoms as scousette noted my favorite sitcom The Big Bang Theory and it goes back to The Beverly Hillbillies: folks who don't seemingly fit in their environment yet ultimately are wiser than the rest. Yeah that's us, a bunch of fools on the hill! ;D sayne, I bet the writer was a first generation Rolling Stones fan(although he looks too young for that)! He is in the least a U2 or REM fanatic! His points might carry more weight if he was a Beatles fan looking inward rather than a Beatles' detractor with sour grapes. For what it is worth, if I was to be in the movie version of the Message Board, I would like to think I could be portrayed by only one man, sadly no longer with us and since he is not then I'll settle for After all, I am married to my own "Vera" who makes me keep my vinyl record albums in storage at my office, won't let me play any Brian Wilson, Partridge Family or Yoko Ono in the car and when Liverpool took requests for songs at the 1997 Chicago Beatlefest, gave me the look of death when I shouted "Revolution No. 9" that otherwise drew a hearty laugh among the knowing. Ray Romano plays me.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 8, 2012 9:17:36 GMT -5
Its interesting how many groups started their recording careers in 1962--Beatles, Beach Boys, Four Seasons, Rolling Stones. All those groups are celebrating their 50th year this year--either 50 years of recording or 50 years in existence for the Stones. Nostalgia is just pop culture stretched out to infinity.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Oct 8, 2012 9:29:09 GMT -5
And in a last chance to redeem himself from the Broadstreet debacle, RTP plays himself. Or maybe "RTP plays with himself". I don't know if that would work on the big screen--too big. The screen I mean.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Oct 8, 2012 9:59:05 GMT -5
That is a good one Mike what with your deadpan humor and all! I had in mind though Stallone:
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Oct 8, 2012 11:00:16 GMT -5
vectisfabber by none other than the mature Sean Connery. Spookily, when Connery was in his Bond years in the 60s, my Dad (who was a teacher at a high school) was often referred to as Sean Connery by some of the girls because he was very similar in colouring and mildly similar in looks.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Oct 8, 2012 11:35:13 GMT -5
I don't blame Joe for not liking that comparison because no one in the U.S. wants to be compared to Rush anymore(even those on the Right) I am not a staunch conservative "righty" like Rush is. I consider each situation on its own and decide accordingly; thus, I am an "Independent". I am also Pro-Choice, and probably many other things different from Rush. The thing is, I despise Rush Limbaugh, and I change the radio dial as soon as I hear him. And what's more, I look nothing like him and have tons more hair.
|
|