"How We’ll Forget John Lennon. Our culture has two types of forgetting." - thought provoking article

"Drake is the Beatles of this generation"



Uh...

 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

 

In terms of fame to this generation. I am not comparing the music.

 

Yeah, it doesn't seem possible to me that anybody legitimately hasn't heard of Drake, either. Also, I am over 35 and have no children. Do some people just not ever watch TV and get any vague sense of what is around in pop culture?

 

According to this ranking, Drake was the 12th most successful touring artist of 2018, behind not just peers such as Taylor Swift and Ed Sheeran, but also behind old fogeys such as the Stones, U2, and the Eagles. Drake couldn’t even beat middle-aged ex-teen idol Justin Timberlake.

These are the highest-grossing tours of 2018

 

Unless Drake had girls falling from exhaustion like Elvis, the Beatles or even MJ and Sinatra, then I think it'll be a great comparison. Also when the Beatles made their big move, the only thing we had was TV. Now we got the internet. Doesn't compare.

 

I know exactly who Drake is, and wish I didn’t. Same old “more money, more problems”
and “I got haters” pablum that hip-hop has been peddling for decades now.

 

Yeah, putting Drake at Beatles-level fame seems like a stretch. It's just such a different world in terms of media and exposure to entertainment.

However, I still don't believe that anybody who is actually conscious in American culture doesn't know who Drake is, even if they don't know or like his music.

 

Well pop culture in 2019 is different from pop culture from 1964 so...

 

The Beatles were pretty good, but Drake's fruit pies make me wanna cry.

 

My wife and I are both essentially 50, and we certainly watch TV. But unless Drake is on Seth Meyers, or SNL -- I'm pretty much not gonna ever see him. We watch a good smattering of things on TV, and my *WIFE* watches ESPN a lot during college basketball season (and college football too, but not as much) -- me? -- I don't have a sports-minded bone in my body!!

Probably half of what we have the TV on for is news or stuff on PBS. Without getting into politics, there's a LOT going on in the world these days. But there has been for a good 20 years now, actually. We normally DVR MSNBC's entire primetime line-up, and watch about half of it every night (skimming through a lot too), but we usually see a good 2 hours worth. Plus the nightly news, plus the PBS News Hour (not all of it, but we DVR it, and watch the parts we want to). Our TV news consumption is easily 3 hours a day, most days -- half of it hard news too.

I can't think of a single venue -- other than SNL or Seth Meyers -- where we get all that much "pop culture" stuff.

 

My favorite Drake story.

 

I’m 56 and know who Drake is. I’m obviously down with the kids

On a more serious note, I do like The Weeknd.

 

Hey, our nightly viewing habits are very similar to yours, and it's not like I'm spending a lot of time and effort searching out artists like Drake. I certainly don't keep up with rap beefs and all of that stuff. But Drake has been on SNL, and I am certain he has been at least mentioned by Seth Meyers at some point. Things that rise to the top of pop culture tend to permeate consciousness even in areas you are not looking for them (I have never watched one of those real housewives shows, but I know they exist because they get talked about).

 

I know a 20 year old girl who just got into Frank S., surprised the hell out of me that she knew of him because she listens to Miley, Taylor and Ariana

 

No offense man, but that seems like a very poorly considered comment. With the exception of religious choral music, virtually ALL music ever written and/or performed was at least partially if not primarily motivated by financial considerations. Even Mozart was all about the benjamins... I would venture to suggest that The Beatles were (and remain) one of the single most clear-cut archetypal examples of a musical group created and managed almost entirely by financial motivation, right up there with the Jackson 5, New Kids on the Block, etc...the major difference being that they were only a band for eight years 40 YEARS AGO, and yet they are still a money making machine, churning out product.
Your last point that the 'the average ear has correspondingly atrophied and regressed since the 60s and 70s' either needs to be backed up with some solid scientific evidence, retracted with an apology, or otherwise held up for universal ridicule.

 

Nick Drake is the real "Drake"

I don't give a damn about that millennial Drake

 

By the way I was born 3 years after Elvis died and I love his music and I play his records

 

called "How I won the War"

The movie is titled " How I won the War"

 

Even if he did see it, there were pop groups on Ed Sullivan every week. The DC5 were on like 25 times, way more than The Beatles, and I'm sure he wouldn't have paid the slightest attention to who they were either.

 

Yes, money is always a factor. The difference is profit becoming the primary motivation. Without getting into music theory here, popular music IS generally becoming more simplistic. Look to youtube for examples of the same simple progressions being used over and over again or read about the Swedish songwriters that generate many of American pop hits. All formula.

The Beatles weren't about formula.

 

I think that this thread has established that different generations have different awareness levels of certain celebrities, which is what the original post was about.

 

I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, but I feel this is an interesting discussion so I am replying in the spirit of good-natured debate.

First off, I am not really sure that there is any grounds to conclude that profit is more or less of a motivator now vs. in the 60s/70s. There are now (as there were then) totally inane groups assembled strictly to churn out marketable drivel, that hasn't changed. One big difference today though is the almost total lack of big deals. Streaming has killed the pop star. It is WAY harder to get signed to a label and actually make money in this day and age. That's a fact, not an opinion. There is less money to go around, plain and simple. You might be surprised how many critically acclaimed artists with multiple albums put out through decent distribution deals live a lower middle class lifestyle. I personally know a couple of artists that are on the radio all the time, win awards, put out good album after good album, and they are only just getting by - like, worried about rent money getting by. I know one guy that tours the world with a very well known group - (5 albums, 2 gold, 3 multi platinum in multiple countries who have charted at number 1 multiple times) that probably makes 100K a year.

Secondly, there was just as much (if not more) formulaic, amateurish chord-based rock and pop in the 60s and 70s. Bad music is not new, and pop music IS formula, almost by definition. Furthermore, I would say that even good music has to be based on a formula. Unless you are talking about some truly experimental ****, even good songs use the same chords and structure - they just do it better (or just get lucky).

Finally, I absolutely don't want to get into debate about the Beatles, but I think it's pretty safe to say that they were about as simple as they could get until they got famous enough (i.e., made enough money playing three-chord pop) that they got some creative license to explore new sounds - let's say starting with Revolver. To what extent those explorations resulted in 'good' music is a matter of taste. Frankly, I would say that if you take the stretch of albums between Revolver to Let it Be, it's mostly pretty average. Definitely some high points, but also a surprising amount of drivel. I can already hear the objections, but my point is that not all experiments are destined to succeed. Of course, it's that risk taking that we appreciate as an audience. Either way, I can't possibly agree with the idea that the Beatles were not influenced and motivated by profit.

 

Gotta say, this is a great thread though!

 

Didn't the Rolling Stones appear on Sullivan more than the Beatles? How many did the Beatles do? Two, right?