I know many young people. Today I told one, who is in a band, that The Rolling Stones and The Beatles were rivals in the 1960's although neither group felt that they were in direct competition and The two groups were in fact some what friends for the most part.

I told him that the big group debate in the 1960's was Stones vs. Beatles and that they were the frick and frack of music in terms of image and persona (as well as music more than half the time). I told him it is common knowledge that these were the two biggest groups of the 60's.

He had no idea of this and seen The Stones as more less a "joke" (due to late night TV shows making fun of them and things like this most likely) and thought they were never really at the level they were or had the major influence that they did

Finally I named some Stones songs and sang them a bit to him that he knew and liked but did not know The Stones sang them until I informed him.

I just think it is a shame and it is sad. He did not even know The Stones were around when The Beatles were around and just seen them as wrinkly old men that are more less just jokes...

That is uncalled for. This younger generation does not know ANYTHING outside of their bubble and their time frame. I knew that, and other basic things when I was 10 years old.


It is sad these days. 19 out of 20 younger people are in that same vain today where as when we were young we knew who The Beatles, The Doors, The Who etc. etc. were and their music as well but we were not even born when many of these artists were making music. However we also knew the music of our day.

Today kids only know what exists inside their bubble.

It is sad.

Ian

Young people suck, and always have done, since i stopped being young.

corgi37 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 12:51am:
\

Post of the week!

All the young people I know can name at least a handful of classic rock artists and tunes. Aerosmith is huge, as is AC/DC and the Stones, the Who, Pink Floyd, Elvis...Biggest is definitely Guns n' Roses and Slash.

And EVERYONE who gives a rat's ass about music knows that Keith is the baddest motherfucker to ever strike a chord.

I remember during those 60's debates when I was young Beatles versus Stones.We thought they invented all that great music until as we aged we began to hear of Muddy Watters/Chuck Berry and all the originals.Youth is wasted on the young.

Avoid stupid people with limited musical knowledgable and taste and you will live a long happy life!

Sioux wrote on Nov 30^th, 2008 at 4:34pm:



no it isn't, it is just amatter of perspective! The older we get, the more out of touch alot of us are with youth culture, as well as being in a group that was once very much in touch with youth culture... there's a paradox for many of us, and it can be overcome easily. Avoiding young stupid people with no musical taste, I did it when i was 12, I can do it in my 40's!

Quote:



_______________________

Well, I prefer to call this young bloke "uneducated" in terms of music and it's history. The reason being is he is interested and will give things a listen. He likes what I have given him thus far and seems interested. I think that, in itself, lends a bit to his intellect. Otherwise I just wouldn't bother and would of passed it off.


Ian

Quote:


I agree especially when it comes to Music, They seem to be very narrow minded, When I became aware of music, I had to find the roots of my favorites, Without the Beatles and the Stones , I would have never paid any Attention to The real greats, that influenced them: Chuck, Richard, Bo, Fats, Jerry Lee, Elvis, Howling Wolf, Krupa, Jones, Goodman, and more way ahead of my time.

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 4:10am:


A very inaccurate generalization that fails to explain phenemenon such as the Partridge Family or the Carpenters.  Bad pop and its adherants have always been with us.  Stop talking to adherants.

You know who sold more albums than anyone in 1967 and 1968?  The Monkees....old people have been bitchin' about an imaginary "good old days" since the dawn of time.  The reality is that there never were any "good old days".

I must admit that I don't really know a lot of teenage guys anymore.......but back in the 60's, it seemed like everyone was so blown away by the music {starting with the British Invasion, as much of the "rock & roll" in the U.S. in the early 60's was pretty bland stuff} that they were all forming bands, in one form or another. "Garage" bands sprang up everywhere. And good instruments were not a necessity!  I remember my younger brother and his "band"....he played ukulele, another kid had a cheap acoustic guitar....and the drummer, seriously, beat on some garbage can lids. Worse than primitive, of course, but the interest and the drive were there. Of course, they all graduated to bigger and better bands.....

I know a few kids who play guitar now, but I just don't see the passion and the fervor that the guys had back when they knew they just HAD to try to make the music they were hearing on the radio.....

Hey, that's a brilliant idea, Bitch... Subtle..and you make them think it was THEIR idea to get interested in the band...

andrews27 wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 11:22pm:


_________________

Ha. Lots may of thought this was an older brand of dog food like Kibbles and Bits, or perhaps they might of determined "frick and frack" was the hippies version of the snack Fiddle Faddle.


Ian

Ian Billen wrote on Dec 1^st, 2008 at 12:59pm:


Growing up the 70s I rarely heard anything worth wild on the radio.

I DJ on Saturday nights at a local club, playing 50s and 60s rock and roll/soul to 150+ mainly under 30s, who religiously support the gig, dance like maniacs, and tell all their friends about.  The club never isn't packed.  We never play the hits, or rarely play the hits, because they have too much weird association to them via movies, commercials, whatever.  But we also never fail to play the Stones, and the Stones never fail to slay.  I have several under 20 fans of the Replacement Party, my radio show specializing in weird-ass rock and roll and other shit.  But my audience at the Admiral and on the Replacement Party is the vast minority.  People born in the late 80s or whatever, why are they gonna for the most part care about something happened 20 years before they were born?  A few are gonna study history and learn about "good stuff", but many more are gonna take their culture as it comes.

"Kids these days and their crap music" is what people who've lost it say.  You may not relate (I don't relate to a lot, even a lot of underground stuff) but don't pretend that you understand what it sounds like to someone 20+ years younger than you.  Remember the kids in the old flicks saying their parents just don't "get" what rock and roll means?  That is you, and this is now.

corgi37 wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 2:28am:


In the past few weeks I have The Breeders, The Melvins and Smashing Pumpkins. It's like 1994 all over again.

Frick and Frack, it must be remembered, were the subject of a repeated non-sequitur gag on Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In show, though of course they made no appearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frick_and_Frack

Many people believe, erroneously, that "Frick" was a reference to tyrannical Pittsburgh steel and coal baron Henry Clay Frick (1849-1919).  But I always say, "Fruck that Frick!"

Seems like your head is pretty frucking freductive, not to mention half frull, considering you can illustrate with songs on one side and mere names on the other.  You gonna put up a bunch of one hit wonders (which is where the pop action almost always is) against big stars of the day?  Unfair to modernity, says I, and thence shall cite MIA's Paper Planes and, oh, Rehab as evidence that all hast not gone straight to hell.  And declare pubically there is less worst wild things in this world than Kanye.

Nasty Habits wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 7:59am:


Well, that was the point of the mathematical exercise: that this relative junk was more accomplished and memorable than the output of Today's Newest Hitmakers.  The equation is merely an unbalanced sketch because I can only remember the names of the most annoying stuff I hear in this decade (viz. "Papazao").  

I purposely reserved the big guns for this moment.  Compare Today's Newest Hitmakers, or even those from 1985-2000, to 1970s Steely Dan, Bowie, Springsteen, Curtis Mayfield, Bob Marley, Patti Smith, the Clash and all punk rock...and all one is left holding is wishful thinking, and the need to perpetuate one's critical faculties by bringing artists of the Declining Ages into the pop discourse by the default criteria of their being All That's Left.  It's what the estimable Robert Christgau and the execrable Milo Miles had to do with Marshall Mathers to keep getting paid and broadcast occasionally on NPR.  It's rather like celebrating the final Roman emperors, such as the epicene Heliogabalus and the infant Romulus Augustus.

Peace-out, gangsta!  Which posse ya gonna remembah when ya 64?

Hey! i'm a young rolling stone fan but i must admit alot of the young people are kinda stupid about the  beatles and the stones for instance  when keith fell out of the tree i told my friend about it and she said keith richards isn't he in the beatles? so yeah alot of them can be quite dumb but not all of them i actually do my musical background search but i don't know about the rest of em'

silver rainbow wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 6:27pm:


Silver R, I hold no brief against young people, being a teacher.  What I despise is the loss of pop craftsmanship among the elders that write for today's recording artists.  And the producers, and the execs....  May we all know better pop and better times.

andrews27 wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 6:37pm:


I've been on an Eminemp3 kick this week and have been jazzed at how well his, um, oeuvre holds up - it delivers laughs and insight into the culture-at-large through the admittedly limited perspective of narcissism that is at the heart of his discourse.  As far as the lack of melody in his spite and ire, I don't agree at all.  I would cite, say, Renagade, from Jay-Z's Blueprint, on which Mr. M raps like a demon, as melodic infusion into the beat driven id spew.  But if you don't hear melody bolstering lyrical murder there, ask yourself (this is a discussion, not a gambit, so your honest response is welcome) if that's the song or your ears.

And I agree with you that Mr. Christgau delivering pronouncements on, say, Vampire Weekend is ridiculous, and that making new releases 'canonical' A plusses in the same sense that Countdown to Ecstasy is an A+ is absurd.  The Dean was on it in the 70s and 80s, when popular music was being made for his demographic.  My point is that there is a ton of music out there not being pitched to or most importantly made for 39 me or 49 you or 6whatever Rob the C-goo.  And pretending that there is still some kind of center from which one can discuss the pop music of 2008 is nuts. I don't think consensus can be made about this stuff and there's not still some kind of "industry" that can deliver a marketplace rather than the crazed chaos of MySpace pages and online downloading free-for-all.  Maybe that has to do with a decline in quality of stuff - it can't catch everyone's ear anymore.  Or maybe things fall apart and the center can't hold.  Or maybe the center was always just an illusion.  

Has there ever been a time when the older generation hasn't said "the music of the youth of today is nonsense"?  Jazz is an abomination in the face of "serious music", BeBop haters, rock and roll dissers who preferred Mantovani for melody and beauty, Robert Crumb and other Yazoo blues fans railing against the Rolling Stones, Jann Wenner hating on punk, Bob Dylan vs. everybody, Keith Richards vs. rap - this is stuff we should be extremely suspicious of lest we become cranky old men with ossified eardrums.  So, yeah, I could list a bunch of personal faves from the last 18 years that for me have some heavy juice and continue to please me when I stick them in the matrix, and I could ultimately admit that none of it will ever be Let It Bleed, but so what? Does that say more about Let It Bleed or me?  What the hell is good as MacBeth or Moby Dick?  The slope been slipping for centuries, apparently.

Given my druthers I live at the Goodwill hoping for a big fat stack of unsoiled records, preferably 45s, to come out, because so much of my relevant culture comes through the Goodwill, and hell yeah you got to dig for it, not to mention push some other mofo out the way so you can get to it first.  I carry that into my day-to-day, so maybe looking in the alley for my kicks is just what comes natural.   I stepped out a long time ago, and will gladly admit to responding to stimuli biologically rather than sociologically.  My culture is mine own - if it dovetails with the mass-mind than yee haw, join my party, but I'll keep going my own way for another ten years at least, thanks.  Has not served me terribly thus far.  To quote Mr. Idiot Wind, "Every inch of pleasure got an edge of pain, pay for your ticket and don't complain."

We fired our canons 'til the barrel melted down, let's grab an alligator and pull another round.