New in the Charts Thread
-
Eminem & Jay-Z are considered "classic rock" to today's millennials. They also view the Beatles as some sort of historical fact - like the baby boomers growing up viewed Mozart. They know they're good, but will never pay $$ to listen to their music.
-
I gave a history presentation yesterday at a local high school, to 14 year old ninth graders. I let them know I wanted them to take out their ear pieces while I spoke. After my talk, I spoke to a young girl and asked her what she listened to. She could not name the artist. I then said, "You need to listen to the Beatles." And she said "I don't like that kind of music." I said "How about Cheap Trick?" and she responded "I don't like that kind of music." She's not going to listen to the Beatles or to a Paul McCartney CD, even a NEW one.
-
Perhaps if you'd spoken to an Honors class, or the school-newspaper staff, the debate team, or members of the Student Council, you might've had different results. Paul McCartney's music -- let alone, ANY intelligent music -- is NOT for the average American high-schooler.
-
audi:
Perhaps if you'd spoken to an Honors class, or the school-newspaper staff, the debate club or members of the Student Council, you might've had different results. Paul McCartney's music -- let alone, ANY intelligent music -- is NOT for the average American high-schooler.
Yeah, Audi, that would have made a difference. :
-
RMartinez:
audi:
Perhaps if you'd spoken to an Honors class, or the school-newspaper staff, the debate club or members of the Student Council, you might've had different results. Paul McCartney's music -- let alone, ANY intelligent music -- is NOT for the average American high-schooler.
Yeah, Audi, that would have made a difference. :
I didn't hang out with the dumb-asses in my school, so I speak from experience. Usually, the smarter a kid is, the better his/her taste in music is.
-
audi:
RMartinez:
audi:
Perhaps if you'd spoken to an Honors class, or the school-newspaper staff, the debate club or members of the Student Council, you might've had different results. Paul McCartney's music -- let alone, ANY intelligent music -- is NOT for the average American high-schooler.
Yeah, Audi, that would have made a difference. :
I didn't hang out with the dumb-asses in my school, so I speak from experience. Usually, the smarter a kid is, the better his/her taste in music is.
In my 12 years of high school teaching, I'd back this up, actually. However, to be fair, I've also met some students with educational issues that love The Beatles. However, when it comes to The Beatles' solo work, usually the honors students and kids in AP classes have more experience and actually enjoy Paul's more recent musical offerings (and one even worships Ringo, believe it or not!).
-
For the record: When I use the term "dumb-ass," I'm not referring to students who under-perform academically, in general. I'm referring to the typical, Top-40, pedestrian-minded idiots who are lowering the curve with each passing generation.
-
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
-
RMartinez:
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
Nope, as usual, you're totally misinterpreting the previous comments to suit your needs. Glad to see I haven't missed much in my time away from the forum.
-
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
Nope, as usual, you're totally misinterpreting the previous comments to suit your needs. Glad to see I haven't missed much in my time away from the forum.
In fact, here's my previous comment again, just so you can re-read it: "In my 12 years of high school teaching, I'd back this up, actually. However, to be fair, I've also met some students with educational issues that love The Beatles. However, when it comes to The Beatles' solo work, usually the honors students and kids in AP classes have more experience and actually enjoy Paul's more recent musical offerings (and one even worships Ringo, believe it or not!)."
-
RMartinez:
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
Yep, that's about right.
-
audi:
RMartinez:
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
Yep, that's about right.
-
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
-
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
So, students who listen to The Beatles, smart. All the rest, dumb asses. Ok! Got it!
Nope, as usual, you're totally misinterpreting the previous comments to suit your needs. Glad to see I haven't missed much in my time away from the forum.
You were away from the forum?
-
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
-
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
No problem with that assessment. But that just means we may never know. It's not confirmation that millions of young people, say ages 13-21, are actually fanatically listening to The Beatles and Paul McCartney, just not buying it. But, again going back to the intent of my original post, even if they are, it is not translating into sales for NEW.
-
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
No problem with that assessment. But that just means we may never know. It's not confirmation that millions of young people, say ages 13-21, are actually fanatically listening to The Beatles and Paul McCartney, just not buying it. But, again going back to the intent of my original post, even if they are, it is not translating into sales for NEW.
Nothing is confirmation as to how many young people, young adults, adults, or geriatric citizens are listening to The Beatles, or any other band. As for sales of NEW, was anyone really expecting it to be a big seller? For a 71-year old, the fact that he made the Top 5 was incredible, and the fact that he's still in the Top 20 2 weeks later is a minor miracle. Let's get real, here. As good as the album is, it's not going to get major airplay (or any) on any major radio stations simply because of Paul's age. Period. That's why his ranking in the album sales list is so amazing.
-
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
No problem with that assessment. But that just means we may never know. It's not confirmation that millions of young people, say ages 13-21, are actually fanatically listening to The Beatles and Paul McCartney, just not buying it. But, again going back to the intent of my original post, even if they are, it is not translating into sales for NEW.
Nothing is confirmation as to how many young people, young adults, adults, or geriatric citizens are listening to The Beatles, or any other band. As for sales of NEW, was anyone really expecting it to be a big seller? For a 71-year old, the fact that he made the Top 5 was incredible, and the fact that he's still in the Top 20 2 weeks later is a minor miracle. Let's get real, here. As good as the album is, it's not going to get major airplay (or any) on any major radio stations simply because of Paul's age. Period. That's why his ranking in the album sales list is so amazing.
I have already said as much. I think the CD is doing quite well, given the state of music today and everything you and I have already said.
-
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
No problem with that assessment. But that just means we may never know. It's not confirmation that millions of young people, say ages 13-21, are actually fanatically listening to The Beatles and Paul McCartney, just not buying it. But, again going back to the intent of my original post, even if they are, it is not translating into sales for NEW.
Nothing is confirmation as to how many young people, young adults, adults, or geriatric citizens are listening to The Beatles, or any other band. As for sales of NEW, was anyone really expecting it to be a big seller? For a 71-year old, the fact that he made the Top 5 was incredible, and the fact that he's still in the Top 20 2 weeks later is a minor miracle. Let's get real, here. As good as the album is, it's not going to get major airplay (or any) on any major radio stations simply because of Paul's age. Period. That's why his ranking in the album sales list is so amazing.
I have already said as much. I think the CD is doing quite well, given the state of music today and everything you and I have already said.
Glad we can agree on something.
-
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
walliebaby:
RMartinez:
Actually, you two are misreading my initial post. All I meant was, there really are not that many young people out there who will go out and buy a Beatles CD, never mind a Paul McCartney CD. And the sales of NEW back up my comment.
CD's are a dying breed. Why pay when you can get the music for free online? Using album sales to measure how wide-reaching an album is isn't exactly fair or accurate.
No problem with that assessment. But that just means we may never know. It's not confirmation that millions of young people, say ages 13-21, are actually fanatically listening to The Beatles and Paul McCartney, just not buying it. But, again going back to the intent of my original post, even if they are, it is not translating into sales for NEW.
Nothing is confirmation as to how many young people, young adults, adults, or geriatric citizens are listening to The Beatles, or any other band. As for sales of NEW, was anyone really expecting it to be a big seller? For a 71-year old, the fact that he made the Top 5 was incredible, and the fact that he's still in the Top 20 2 weeks later is a minor miracle. Let's get real, here. As good as the album is, it's not going to get major airplay (or any) on any major radio stations simply because of Paul's age. Period. That's why his ranking in the album sales list is so amazing.
I have already said as much. I think the CD is doing quite well, given the state of music today and everything you and I have already said.
Glad we can agree on something.
For now! I kid!