[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by initialsBB

See, I just don't think that's a great measure though. In the 70s the oldies radio that existed probably played 50s and early 60s music, then on into the 80s and 90s, we got "classic rock" radio & stuff like that. Now oldies stations play less and less say Leiber and Stoller stuff and more stuff from the 70s. This is simply a function of demographics and economics. There is a little bit of 80s new wave or 90s alternative nostalgia on some radio stations but it's still pretty small because there's a much smaller audience for it. Once the boomers are gone you're not going to see Mercedes commercials with Janis Joplin or Zeppelin songs anymore. So I think this "staying power" is somewhat illusory.

I suppose. I guess we agree to disagree here.

My counter to your points above would be that while many people can't play "name that tune" with Glen Miller's "In The Mood" or "Take The 'A' Train" from Duke Ellington people still know the melody. They may hate it (shame actually) but they KNOW it. Yes more people from my father's generation (the Greatest Generation for sure) know these songs but they are just too good and too catchy to forget about.

Songs from the 60's and 70's have the same thing going for them there is just MORE of it.

I agree that bands in those days seemed to have a bigger cultural impact. I think this was largely do to the influence and relevance of radio and the lack of other entertainment options for teenagers. It was just the beginning of TV shows and movies that were targeted specifically to teenagers. But again, demographics played a huge part in this. A huge generation all came of age at once at a time when the concept of the "teenager" was just coming into existence. Then take a look at Gen Y who rival the size of the boomers and you'll see why Britney and the rest of them were so huge at a time when these kids were in their pre-teens.

You know, I think THAT is my point right there.

Yes Britney was THAT popular because of the teenagers / kids, same exact thing with the the Beatles.

The HUGE difference is that Britney (and all the others) are something you grow out of, the Beatles are something you grow up with. I am almost 40, I have been listening to the Beatles since I was 5, probably earlier. I will be listening to them until I die or go deaf. Everytime I listen I get something new from the expereince, lyrics, music, production, something.

Can the same be said for Britney's fans?

I don't know, I am not a huge fan but from what I have heard her stuff is not life changing, it's not something to touch your soul, it's not intriguing enough to follow for a lifetime. It's something that you listen to as a kid and grow out of as an adult for most people (some people just never grow up at all but that is a different story)…. at least that's how I see it from the outside.

Oh, and the Beatles were obviously better than the White Stripes.

I am with ya… I still like the Strips though….

I was only kidding of course. But it is sort of amusing to think about what would happen if a young band came out today, covered another artist's song and gave themselves songwriting credit with no recognition of the original artist. Think of what Gearslutz would say about that! There would be hell to pay!

Good point, good point…