Will we be listening to today's music in 20 years?

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Michael Jackson's reputation and status has improved with the passage of time?

It is pointless to compare artists from very different time periods. Elvis' first (and best) works were from 60 years ago and it has been 50 years since The Beatles recorded any music - the world was a very different place then, as was the music business. The circumstances which produced the genuine phenomenon that was "Beatlemania" are unlikely to be seen again.

I mean they've become far bigger and well known over time. Beatlemania was a bit of a fake thing. The Beatles are a lot better considered these days. Back in the 60s they were just considered another band by most people. The Mythos stuff has developed later.

Lex-Man wrote:I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Taylor Swift's last album was literally all about how terrible her reputation is, too

"My reputation's never been worse so he must like me for me"

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Michael Jackson's reputation and status has improved with the passage of time?

It is pointless to compare artists from very different time periods. Elvis' first (and best) works were from 60 years ago and it has been 50 years since The Beatles recorded any music - the world was a very different place then, as was the music business. The circumstances which produced the genuine phenomenon that was "Beatlemania" are unlikely to be seen again.

I mean they've become far bigger and well known over time. Beatlemania was a bit of a fake thing. The Beatles are a lot better considered these days. Back in the 60s they were just considered another band by most people. The Mythos stuff has developed later.

Beatlemania definitely wasn't a fake thing, but I agree that The Beatles are better considered post-Beatlemania than they were beforehand.

But that is more about them being respected as artists and creators and the greater appreciation of the evolving depth of their sound in the later years - the change away from being "just" a teenybopper, radio friendly pop group was one of the things that killed off Beatlemania. In terms of how "big" they were and awareness of them within the general public I would imagine it stayed fairly consistent from the Beatlemania days onward.

The idea that The Beatles were just considered "another band" in the 60s is simply not true though - lets not forget these guys were bigger than Jesus after all!

5 out of 10 of the biggest selling singles of the 60s were by The Beatles. They were far more than “just another band” in the 60s.

Pretty average band really. Only managed to simultaneously hold the top 5 positions on the US Billboard chart for a measly 1 week, bunch of losers.

But there were only about six bands back in the 60s!

Meh, i preferred the shitty version...

Wings were always the superior band anyway.

Jenuall wrote:Wings were always the superior band anyway.

They're only the band the Beatles could have been!

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Michael Jackson's reputation and status has improved with the passage of time?

It is pointless to compare artists from very different time periods. Elvis' first (and best) works were from 60 years ago and it has been 50 years since The Beatles recorded any music - the world was a very different place then, as was the music business. The circumstances which produced the genuine phenomenon that was "Beatlemania" are unlikely to be seen again.

I mean they've become far bigger and well known over time. Beatlemania was a bit of a fake thing. The Beatles are a lot better considered these days. Back in the 60s they were just considered another band by most people. The Mythos stuff has developed later.

Beatlemania definitely wasn't a fake thing, but I agree that The Beatles are better considered post-Beatlemania than they were beforehand.

But that is more about them being respected as artists and creators and the greater appreciation of the evolving depth of their sound in the later years - the change away from being "just" a teenybopper, radio friendly pop group was one of the things that killed off Beatlemania. In terms of how "big" they were and awareness of them within the general public I would imagine it stayed fairly consistent from the Beatlemania days onward.

The idea that The Beatles were just considered "another band" in the 60s is simply not true though - lets not forget these guys were bigger than Jesus after all!

I spoken to a bunch of people who were alive in the 60s and their view is that the Beatles were just considered a band in the 60s and it was afterwards that people considered them music legends. I have to admit they sold a lot of records though.

Also the Beatlemania thing was started by the Beatles management paying women to chasing after them. Other women started copying and it got huge after the press picked up on it. They're not the only band that have been chased around by screaming women either. Frank Sinatra was being chased around by women in the 40s and women are stalking One Direction in creepy online ways today.

Really don't like the Beatles stuff but I'm glad that they were so influencial (post Beetlemania) on future bands/artists who would be inspired by their more psychedelic output.

I'm a massive Chemical Brothers fan and can't imagine what their music would be like without the Beatles influences on their output.

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Michael Jackson's reputation and status has improved with the passage of time?

It is pointless to compare artists from very different time periods. Elvis' first (and best) works were from 60 years ago and it has been 50 years since The Beatles recorded any music - the world was a very different place then, as was the music business. The circumstances which produced the genuine phenomenon that was "Beatlemania" are unlikely to be seen again.

I mean they've become far bigger and well known over time. Beatlemania was a bit of a fake thing. The Beatles are a lot better considered these days. Back in the 60s they were just considered another band by most people. The Mythos stuff has developed later.

Beatlemania definitely wasn't a fake thing, but I agree that The Beatles are better considered post-Beatlemania than they were beforehand.

But that is more about them being respected as artists and creators and the greater appreciation of the evolving depth of their sound in the later years - the change away from being "just" a teenybopper, radio friendly pop group was one of the things that killed off Beatlemania. In terms of how "big" they were and awareness of them within the general public I would imagine it stayed fairly consistent from the Beatlemania days onward.

The idea that The Beatles were just considered "another band" in the 60s is simply not true though - lets not forget these guys were bigger than Jesus after all!

I spoken to a bunch of people who were alive in the 60s and their view is that the Beatles were just considered a band in the 60s and it was afterwards that people considered them music legends. I have to admit they sold a lot of records though.

Also the Beatlemania thing was started by the Beatles management paying women to chasing after them. Other women started copying and it got huge after the press picked up on it. They're not the only band that have been chased around by screaming women either. Frank Sinatra was being chased around by women in the 40s and women are stalking One Direction in creepy online ways today.

It’s very rare that any artist would be considered a legend in their first few years of creating. And the Beatles were only together for 8 years.

But they were an absolute phenomenon in the 60s. It’s madness to even suggest that they weren’t.

I’ve never heard before that the management paid women go chase them, is that true?

Moggy wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Lex-Man wrote:

Moggy wrote:

NickSCFC wrote:

Green Gecko wrote:Your last post has answered that question. Besides being facetious in your own topic which prevents you from gleaming any new views that you have invited people to share. Good at making threads, terrible at illuminating anything from them. Same old Nick.

It's not my topic, my posts merely give my perspective as an answer, it just happens to differ from yours.

So who, today, is as big as Elvis, The Beatles and Michael Jackson were at their peak?

https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2018/0 ... -star-died

How are you judging “big”?

Rihanna has outsold everyone except the Beatles.

Is that big enough?

I'm not saying I like them but, Kanye West, Ed Sheeran, Ariana Grande, Drake and Taylor Swift.

All those people mentioned in that article have had their reputation and status improved by the passage of time.

Michael Jackson's reputation and status has improved with the passage of time?

It is pointless to compare artists from very different time periods. Elvis' first (and best) works were from 60 years ago and it has been 50 years since The Beatles recorded any music - the world was a very different place then, as was the music business. The circumstances which produced the genuine phenomenon that was "Beatlemania" are unlikely to be seen again.

I mean they've become far bigger and well known over time. Beatlemania was a bit of a fake thing. The Beatles are a lot better considered these days. Back in the 60s they were just considered another band by most people. The Mythos stuff has developed later.

Beatlemania definitely wasn't a fake thing, but I agree that The Beatles are better considered post-Beatlemania than they were beforehand.

But that is more about them being respected as artists and creators and the greater appreciation of the evolving depth of their sound in the later years - the change away from being "just" a teenybopper, radio friendly pop group was one of the things that killed off Beatlemania. In terms of how "big" they were and awareness of them within the general public I would imagine it stayed fairly consistent from the Beatlemania days onward.

The idea that The Beatles were just considered "another band" in the 60s is simply not true though - lets not forget these guys were bigger than Jesus after all!

I spoken to a bunch of people who were alive in the 60s and their view is that the Beatles were just considered a band in the 60s and it was afterwards that people considered them music legends. I have to admit they sold a lot of records though.

Also the Beatlemania thing was started by the Beatles management paying women to chasing after them. Other women started copying and it got huge after the press picked up on it. They're not the only band that have been chased around by screaming women either. Frank Sinatra was being chased around by women in the 40s and women are stalking One Direction in creepy online ways today.

It’s very rare that any artist would be considered a legend in their first few years of creating. And the Beatles were only together for 8 years.

But they were an absolute phenomenon in the 60s. It’s madness to even suggest that they weren’t.

I’ve never heard before that the management paid women go chase them, is that true?

I heard somebody talking about it, I think he had written a book on fans. He was talking about how it was coming practice from about the time Frank Sinatra was around up until, I think, the 90's. He said that Sinatra had done it and the Beatles did it for a bit to get press early in their careers.

NickSCFC wrote:

KK wrote:Music from the 70s, 80s & 90s are still regularly listened to today, but do you think music of the last 10 years will also hold the test of time - the Lady Gaga's & Cascada's of this world? Or will Michael Jackson & the Stones still be filling the airwaves? It seems a lot more music from recent time has been forgotten about, whereas music, particularly on television - highlight reels & VTs ect - is still accompanied with tracks from 20/30 years ago.

Were Cascada big when this thread was made back in 2011?

If so, maybe we have a (partial) answer.

Apparently Cascada is still a thing.

Moggy wrote:
Apparently Cascada is still a thing.

Christ, I remember we always used to go to the main club in Stoke which played the usual Prodigy, Faithless and Underworld stuff.

They had a refurb and suddenly started playing all that Clubland crap like DeeDee/Kelly Llorena stuff...




...we never stepped foot in there again.

I liked Dee Dee: Forever.

That line up is crap Gareth Gates, that chav Dappy scraping the barrel with Amelia Lily & a ginger Ed sheeran tribute desperate same with the Little Mix tribute

I wonder how many people see ED & Little Mix on that poster then buy tickets expecting the real ones and then getting 2 lame tribute acts instead