Question regarding fan age of rock icons

Okay, so I'm a writer on a television series aimed at younger audiences and I recently proposed an episode where the characters, who are all about 18 years old, are going to a charity rock show to help save an old theater in a small town that had given the first break to a HUGE rock icon back in the day. We are going to make up a pretend rock star, but I pitched it as being like a Dylan or The Rolling Stones or Beatles - someone THAT big and famous and iconic. Anyway, this pretend rock icon decided he would play the event, himself, to pay back the favor to the theater for giving him his start and I have the characters very excited that the rock star will be playing the show. Now, my fellow creative team claimed that no 18 year old would be excited if a Dylan, Stones or Beatles played a show. That 18 year olds don't know who people like that are and wouldn't be excited to see them - that they are just "old men" to them. I'm a HUGE music head, so, of course, I knew who those guys were when I was 18 - even when I was 8, but I thought this was outlandish even for people who aren't as into music as I am. Am I wrong? Do 18 year olds NOT know or care who Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones or The Beatles are? Would they REALLY not be excited if one of those guys were playing a small, local theater for a charity they were going to? I lost the battle already, but it still bugs me. Maybe I am wrong, but it's really strange if that's the case.

 

Lemmy, Ozzie, or Neil Young.

 

Most 18 year olds don't have a clue about the importance of a Bob Dylan or Rolling Stones. They have their own bands that are current to their musical tastes. Likewise I'm totally clueless on what an 18 year old would find hip.

 

Sorry, you are wrong. The vast majority of 18 year olds wouldn't care about going to see a old geezer rehashing 35+ year old music. What do you find strange about 18 year olds not being interested in music from another generation?

 

I was in a record store talking to some young dudes who worked there, and they were VERY impressed when I told them that I saw the Clash...

'60s-era icons are about as interesting to 18-year-olds as Glenn Miller and Artie Shaw are to people today who are in their 40 or 50s.

 

A Kurt Cobain clone playing Nirvana-esque music is the only correct answer.

 

I would have loved to read your post but as a boomer I need paragraphs separated.

 

Let's put it another way...when I was 18, Frank Sinatra was 63, and no one could have seemed older and less hip (although I later learned the error of my ways). If you're 18 right now, Mick Jagger is 70.

 

I see this stuff starting to appear on PBS stations.. Old geezer stuff like a tribute to the Bee Gees? wow. And the old farts actually playing in concerts? Like who cares!
And I am old, but I have no need for 70 plus year old geezers on stage trying to recapture their youth. Makes me want to barf.
The fact PBS is playing it means those people it appeals to are getting old, and worthy of inclusion along with Lawrence Welk fans to tap for money donations....
The Nirvana comment might be right on.. And the Clash.. Anything before that and all you got is oldsters..
The Rolling Stones should actually be playing a tour of Senior Citizen residences..
I guess I am biased against my own age group..

 

As part of the age demographic of the people in your show, I can say that I'm quite familiar with all of the people you mentioned. Although, you could probably have guessed that by my being here.
A lot of my friends and other people I've talked to certainly know who they are - probably more The Beatles and The Rolling Stones than Bob Dylan, but still. I see a lot of people walking around in Stones and Beatles T-shirts, even some from the recent Rolling Stones tour.

Furthermore, I love the kind of show your describing. I went to a similar show for The Zombies at the Observatory - which was one of the most incredible concerts I've ever been to - and the room was packed with young kids my age and people much older. Same mix-of-age thing when I saw The Three O'Clock at the same venue.


The whole "18 year old's don't know blah blah blah" is a popular bandwagon to jump on, but it's usually just completely untrue.

 

Hey, seriously, my brother is a writer in L.A. for a show on ABC Family aimed at 18-24 year olds. I'll ask him for you. But in the meantime, how about that rock group The Strypes? They're what, 17-19 years old? And their entire sound is based on the British Invasion bands of the mid to late 60s.

Speaking for myself, when I was 19 in the 80s, I was digging on the Doors, the Grateful Dead, Neil Young and Dylan. Of course all those guys were a lot younger then, except for dead Jim Morrison and the defunct Doors.

I think in the end, it's about the quality of the records and the ability of the music to stand the test of time and speak on some level to the younger generation of today, not about the age of the listener. Kids are probably always going to want to see newer acts just coming to the fore, but I'm sure there are plenty of teen kids who know, understand and like the Beatles. I saw plenty of teen kids at The Rolling Stones last year, and when my brother and I went to see The Who in Oakland last year, I was sitting next to a teenage kid that was more into the show than I was.

I don't think you were wrong, you just got out-voted by those of a different opinion. And if they're not really into The Rolling Stones or The Beatles themselves, they're just going to assume that folks much younger than they are are really not going to care about those bands. Wrong.

Plus, man, a TV writer who is in his or her late thirties or early forties is sometimes deathly afraid of aging out and being replaced by younger talent that supposedly understands better what is funny or entertaining to the age range the show is targeting. I've heard this from my brother many times. You probably scared the **** out of some of your colleagues by suggesting acts that got their start in the 1960s could be good subject matter for your show. They're less concerned with what's good for the show and more concerned with appearing "now" and "cool" or whatever. "The character should be a Macklemore type." LOL. Not to insult your co-writers at all.

 

Th

thank you for adding paragraphs

 

Until we conduct a scientific study, the answer to your question here can only be based on anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are 18 yr olds who have no idea who Bob Dylan is. Yes, there are 18 yr olds who are deeply into Bob Dylan's music.
I will say that 18 yr olds today are much more likely to be into (or at least aware of) music of the 60s than previous generations would have been into music that was half a century old. In this day and age, to not know who these artists are and have a general idea of their significance is simply ignorance of history.

 

I'm definitely a paragraph fan. Old school writer, sitting right here.

 

Please use paragraphs, it makes it a lot easier to read.

 

That's what I went with.

 

Ha! Sorry. I didn't say I was GOOD writer.

 

lol....touche'

 

oh I don't know... bob plays college campuses quite a bit and the kids come out.....

 

Thank you! Yeah, it just never occurred to me, because I know/knew who those guys were, that any 18 year old today wouldn't also know about them and appreciate/care about their music.

New paragraph. It doesn't feel the same as saying it's like "Count Basie" to MY generation because rock music made in the 1960's by people like Dylan, the Beatles and there Stones are still relevant and inspiration for new acts - like Jake Bugg.

 

I'm a lot older than 18. Twice that age, in fact. Of course, I know those artists. But I would not be excited to see any of them these days. They're WELL past their prime (they were well past their prime when I was 18!) and to be honest, no longer have anything to offer that I am even remotely interested in. I can only imagine how little interest an 18 y.o. would have in seeing those old codgers.

Older listeners have to accept that the Beatles and Bob didn't change the World for younger people, or even people my age. Your personal experience with them is very different to mine, let alone teenagers of today. That is how it should be.

Really, it is unrealistic and highly self centred to expect young people to have the same reverence you have for pop culture icons of half a century ago.

 

I can you tell you that things are different in Europe!

During the Stones' Bridges To Babylon tour in 1998 in Amsterdam my group of hardcore Stones fans (we travel the World to see the band) found ourselves next to a bunch of young Dutch girls. It turned out to be the 17th birthday of one of them. When the Stones played Little Queenie in the middle of the show, we all turned, pointed at the birthday girl and sang along to the line:

She's too cute to be a minute over seventeen.

She got a kick out of it.

I've seen plenty of youngsters at Stones shows, Neil Young, McCartney, etc. Tends to be more families going together here in the US, but, like a poster above, I too was next to a young couple at The Who's Quadrophenia show in Oakland.

I also see lots of youngsters at shows by the likes of Los Lobos at venues like The Fillmore. Maybe the SF Bay Area is not representative, who knows?

 

Dylan is still relevant.. heck he had that Super Bowl ad earlier this year..


I think kids may not know his music but they know he is the man... and a lot of young kids go see him live.... not saying they like the show!

 

great point up above...its the same in Argentina.. .the people who go to see bands like the Stones and AC/DC and Bob Dylan are YOUNG...teenagers..

 

Anyone who truly loves music and is thinking objectively, without age-ism, or without rebelling against parents generations, would appreciate the greatness of at least one of The Beatles, Stones, Dylan. At age 18 I would have gone to see Mozart if he performed at age 250 or whatever. Great music is great music and to the unbiased, seeing the original artist perform their original songs should be welcomed. I maintain that adamant opposition to the greatest music of the 60s is based on emotional biases screwing up thinking ... unless we're talking about someone who just doesn't like music anyway, and there are plenty of such people. Music is just noise to a certain subset of people, but some of these people just think they like music, when in fact they are just wanting to be "cool".