Your most controversial music opinions

[found home in 2009]

I think if you like music it's natural to go back and listen to what came before your generation. But I also think you only go back so far. I was born in the 80s, loved 60s music, but never really explored music from the 50s as it seemed a bit dull and old fashioned.

If teenagers now are similar to me and exploring back 20 years worth of music before they were born then they aren't going to listen past the mid 80s.

So I reckon it's entirely plausible the Beatles (and pretty much everyone from the 60s) will become less culturally relevant. I don't think anything stays relevant forever. Even classical music, how many people actually listen to it? And it has the benefit of being used in film and tv as it's copyright free, that wont happen to the Beatles until 70 years after Paul dies, they might be almost completely forgotten by then.


 

[dentalplan]

1 hour ago, found home in 2009 said:

I think if you like music it's natural to go back and listen to what came before your generation. But I also think you only go back so far. I was born in the 80s, loved 60s music, but never really explored music from the 50s as it seemed a bit dull and old fashioned.

If teenagers now are similar to me and exploring back 20 years worth of music before they were born then they aren't going to listen past the mid 80s.

So I reckon it's entirely plausible the Beatles (and pretty much everyone from the 60s) will become less culturally relevant. I don't think anything stays relevant forever. Even classical music, how many people actually listen to it? And it has the benefit of being used in film and tv as it's copyright free, that wont happen to the Beatles until 70 years after Paul dies, they might be almost completely forgotten by then.


 

There was a huge popular musical revolution in the 60's though. The Beatles, the Stones, loads of 60's and 70's acts were more influenced by what was happening then or just a few years before than 20 years before they were born. There was a flag planted around that time for music's importance across nations and generations, probably influenced by the early years of the pop charts.

The 60's and 70's are still romanticised in film and in art so teenagers now will probably still be looking at that. Fleetwood Mac seem to be bigger than ever because of this utopian Californian lense their music is projected through. I can't see it going anywhere. Queen are perhaps as big as they have been since Live Aid because of the movie wot got done.

You will of course have it boiled down so that some huge acts from those periods, thinking like the Beach Boys or The Who, fade into relative obscurity but landmark acts will prevail.

[fatyeti24]

1 hour ago, found home in 2009 said:

I think if you like music it's natural to go back and listen to what came before your generation. But I also think you only go back so far. I was born in the 80s, loved 60s music, but never really explored music from the 50s as it seemed a bit dull and old fashioned.

If teenagers now are similar to me and exploring back 20 years worth of music before they were born then they aren't going to listen past the mid 80s.

So I reckon it's entirely plausible the Beatles (and pretty much everyone from the 60s) will become less culturally relevant. I don't think anything stays relevant forever. Even classical music, how many people actually listen to it? And it has the benefit of being used in film and tv as it's copyright free, that wont happen to the Beatles until 70 years after Paul dies, they might be almost completely forgotten by then.


 

Loads.  It's very popular.  People didn't stop writing, performing or listening to it when Mozart died!

[stuartbert two hats]

2 hours ago, found home in 2009 said:

I think if you like music it's natural to go back and listen to what came before your generation. But I also think you only go back so far. I was born in the 80s, loved 60s music, but never really explored music from the 50s as it seemed a bit dull and old fashioned.

If teenagers now are similar to me and exploring back 20 years worth of music before they were born then they aren't going to listen past the mid 80s.

So I reckon it's entirely plausible the Beatles (and pretty much everyone from the 60s) will become less culturally relevant. I don't think anything stays relevant forever. Even classical music, how many people actually listen to it? And it has the benefit of being used in film and tv as it's copyright free, that wont happen to the Beatles until 70 years after Paul dies, they might be almost completely forgotten by then.


 

Have you really not explored any 20th century music before the 60s? No jazz, classical, crooners? Sure, early rock'n'roll was a bit boring compared to what came later, but I suspect you actually know quite a few tunes from before 1960.

[stuartbert two hats]

41 minutes ago, dentalplan said:

There was a huge popular musical revolution in the 60's though. The Beatles, the Stones, loads of 60's and 70's acts were more influenced by what was happening then or just a few years before than 20 years before they were born. There was a flag planted around that time for music's importance across nations and generations, probably influenced by the early years of the pop charts.

The 60's and 70's are still romanticised in film and in art so teenagers now will probably still be looking at that. Fleetwood Mac seem to be bigger than ever because of this utopian Californian lense their music is projected through. I can't see it going anywhere. Queen are perhaps as big as they have been since Live Aid because of the movie wot got done.

You will of course have it boiled down so that some huge acts from those periods, thinking like the Beach Boys or The Who, fade into relative obscurity but landmark acts will prevail.

It makes be very sad to think that The Beach Boys might not be one of those endlessly known landmark acts, but you may well be right. I remember 15 years ago, random people at work only knew them from their Christmas song.

[grumpyhack]

There aren't many joys of being an old fart but one is remembering seeing so many great bands in their prime - as well as discovering new music today.

[philipsteak]

5 hours ago, Homer said:

I think it was Richard herring who said that the plot was ripped off goodnight sweetheart (I’ve not seen it sadly... despite having a Cineworld pass meaning I could have effectively watched it for nothing)

If he was talking about Goodnight Sweetheart it was definitely Richard Herring. No one, including the people who made it, has talked more about it

[Homer]

17 minutes ago, philipsteak said:

If he was talking about Goodnight Sweetheart it was definitely Richard Herring. No one, including the people who made it, has talked more about it

“The paucity of ambition of Gary Sparrow.”

[found home in 2009]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Have you really not explored any 20th century music before the 60s? No jazz, classical, crooners? Sure, early rock'n'roll was a bit boring compared to what came later, but I suspect you actually know quite a few tunes from before 1960.

Old time crooners really aren't my thing. Prefer music with more energy and less schmaltzy. Not really into most jazz music, find it too discordant, though I do sometimes think swing jazz is something I should explore, that does seem quite upbeat and fun. 

I do like blues music so I suppose that's something from before the 60s I enjoy.

I know a fair bit of classical music, both through taking piano lessons when I was younger or via hearing it in films and at sports events. But it's never something I've consciously went and explored. One of my favourite albums ever is Quadrophenia by the Who, which is a rock opera and I think actually does kind of follow the format of classical opera with musical motifs that repeat through it. Maybe opera is something I should explore further. I always love the music they use for the champagne spraying in F1, which is from Carmen:
 

 

[found home in 2009]

2 hours ago, dentalplan said:

There was a huge popular musical revolution in the 60's though. The Beatles, the Stones, loads of 60's and 70's acts were more influenced by what was happening then or just a few years before than 20 years before they were born. There was a flag planted around that time for music's importance across nations and generations, probably influenced by the early years of the pop charts.

The 60's and 70's are still romanticised in film and in art so teenagers now will probably still be looking at that. Fleetwood Mac seem to be bigger than ever because of this utopian Californian lense their music is projected through. I can't see it going anywhere. Queen are perhaps as big as they have been since Live Aid because of the movie wot got done.

You will of course have it boiled down so that some huge acts from those periods, thinking like the Beach Boys or The Who, fade into relative obscurity but landmark acts will prevail.

You might be right, I did wonder when I was typing my comments if the 60s was maybe a special decade that could be an exception.

[CaledonianGonzo]

3 minutes ago, found home in 2009 said:

You might be right, I did wonder when I was typing my comments if the 60s was maybe a special decade that could be an exception.

Maybe cos the generation that came of age during it have spent the subsequent decades making that case and gatekeeping that narrative?  But they won't be around forever....

[Avalon_Fields]

I love the old crooners. I reckon Nat King Cole is the greatest voice ever. Ella Fitzgerald is another awesome voice. Sinatra’s Songs for Swinging Lovers is as good an album as you can hope for.

[CaledonianGonzo]

3 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

It makes be very sad to think that The Beach Boys might not be one of those endlessly known landmark acts, but you may well be right. I remember 15 years ago, random people at work only knew them from their Christmas song.

What is grief, if not Mike Love disappearing?

[Hugh Jass]

Another thing that will keep the Beatles relevant is that they are still a band frequently namechecked as an influence by modern bands.

Think about the boost in relevance they received in the 90’s when the Gallaghers were banging on about them at every opportunity. Every generation has acts who cite the Beatles as inspirations.

[CaledonianGonzo]

The 1990s was a long time ago. Who's influenced by The Beatles at the moment?

[Hugh Jass]

9 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The 1990s was a long time ago. Who's influenced by The Beatles at the moment?

Gaga for one...

The singer has been outspoken about her love for The Beatles. "Without The Beatles I don’t think women would be taking their cardigans off in hallways,” she said in an interview with The Daily Star. “They were responsible for the birth of the sexual revolution for women.”

[Haan]

11 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The 1990s was a long time ago. Who's influenced by The Beatles at the moment?

Frank Ocean. He even interpolates "Here There and Everywhere" on "White Ferrari"

[CaledonianGonzo]

Yeah- Frank Ocean I buy. There's a bit in Billy Eilish too.

Gaga I can't really hear it. 

[SheffJeff]

34 minutes ago, Hugh Jass said:

Gaga for one...

The singer has been outspoken about her love for The Beatles. "Without The Beatles I don’t think women would be taking their cardigans off in hallways,” she said in an interview with The Daily Star. “They were responsible for the birth of the sexual revolution for women.”

I agree that if the beatles didn't influence your favourite band then they will most certainly have influenced your favourite bands favourite band but I did stumble across this song last night from 1935 (have no idea how or why) and the lyrics suggest the birth of sexual revolution for woman predates the beatles by some.

I got nipples on my titties big as the end of my thumb,
I got somethin' 'tween my legs 'll make a dead man come

 

[priest17]

48 minutes ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The 1990s was a long time ago. Who's influenced by The Beatles at the moment?

Tame Impala/Kevin Smith seems like an obvious one to me. 

[Supernintendo Chalmers]

10 hours ago, WestCountryGirl said:

Disclaimer: not a controversial opinion, just musings on the topic of the moment:

I do wonder sometimes what it would have been like to have to 'find' The Beatles for myself, to have just heard the 'big hits' maybe and then have chosen to explore their full discography under my own steam.

As it was though, I just happened to be born into an entire family of Beatles obsessives. Of course we all have our own opinions on the songs themselves and have gone on to broaden our musical horizons but The Beatles are just so steeped in sentiment, nostalgia and all of my fondest memories are soundtracked by them that I genuinely can't imagine what my life would have been without them. They are a constant. And that Beatles love is now already being imprinted on my nephews and nieces.

I just can't imagine any other act around today that the Grandparents right down to the 5 year old grandchildren are all on the same page about being one of their favourite bands/musicians of all time. Of course, this will inevitably fade out in time, but I think there is plenty of gas in the Beatles fandom tank to last a while yet.

Semi-related: uni of Liverpool have just launched an MA on them https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/music/study/postgraduate-taught/the-beatles-ma/

 

 

[Homer]

I’m sorry but the Beatles’ legacy is unimpeachable

 

 

[Homer]

11 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

The 1990s was a long time ago. Who's influenced by The Beatles at the moment?

 

[Avalon_Fields]

12 hours ago, CaledonianGonzo said:

Yeah- Frank Ocean I buy. There's a bit in Billy Eilish too.

Gaga I can't really hear it. 

An artist doesn't have to sound like The Beatles to be influenced by the Beatles.

[CaledonianGonzo]

7 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

An artist doesn't have to sound like The Beatles to be influenced by the Beatles.

While that may be true - as their influence becomes more and more diffuse, it also becomes more difficult to pin down and - eventually - so vague as to be meaningless.