is it Really Not OK to Not Know who Paul McCarteny Is???

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by red mpls

I didn't read through this entire thread but based on what I did read I will say this:

Some of y'all have no concept of what it's like to grow up in the hood. I personally know dozens of people that, if I asked them who Paul McCartney was would tell me that they have no idea. Some of the people in their 30s might remember that he was on Thriller. Maybe. But that would be essentially their only reference for him. This does not make them bad or stupid people. McCartney and the Beatles were never relevant to their lives or to the lives of the people they grew up around or to the larger Black community in general. Especially for those born in the 80s and 90s.

I fail to understand how people don't seem to be able to grasp this...

END THREAD.

 

[0cks]

Sillyputty spit some ism... the average person prolly has heard of .00005 of the music out there, an elitist has heard maybe .00025 of the music ever produced and wants to make everyone they meet feel dumb over this "knowledge"

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Remember, for every Al Green or James Brown, there was probably a lesser known version of him that did it x10 better but never got that shine. You're not doing a service to yourself to only remember the famous names. Those are just popular acts made to appeal to wide swaths of people...thats like going 50 years from now and telling the new pop princess to do her homework on Rihanna or Gaga.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Fifty of sixty years ago the climate of the music industry was totally different...talent reigned supreme above all else. A lot of the most popular artists were the best in their respective genres. That's not to say that there weren't lesser known artists that were more talented, but ten times more talented seems like a stretch.

It wasn't until I was older that I said, screw it. if I didn't get introduced to it, or didn't grow up around then who cares. I'm it only for what I love to listen to. I bet those white kids didn't know about Marley, Bunny Wailer, Dennis Brown, Barrington Levy, Buju, etc. All great artists in their own right.

I didn't grow up during the thriving eras of jazz in the 50s and 60s, but I yearn for that music like no other...its real to me...but it doesn't prevent me from listening to newer cats like Esperanza Spalding or Marsalis.

I think you're just using examples, and I could be misunderstanding you, but it seem that you're going a step beyond not being informed about an artist by basically saying that it's okay to keep yourself deaf to new/different music..."new" meaning never heard before, not recently released.
How do you know you won't love something that you've never heard before?

For every name you list, I can show you a longer list of artists you've NEVER heard of and ask why you don't know them. 

You can't call someone an elitist and then say something like that. That's the elitist pledge of allegiance right there.

 

[seasoned vet]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by seasoned vet

Originally Posted by sillyputty

This is the problem with dealing with the bias on this topic.
When I grew up, I had ONLY the radio to listen to until MP3s got really popular and online streaming was available to listen to radio stations in other parts of the country.

Kids today have way more music and can develop more cult followings of underground acts more than they could ever before. 

In the past, you were forced to listen to whatever was on the radio, and that usually consisted of a lot of music from previous generations. 

I can honestly say that the ONLY reason I know about the names from the 70s and even the 60s is because growing up thats what we listened to...and I had NO alternative.

Now, there is no barrier to the array of music thats available. 

Give me a laptop with the access I have now in the mid-90s when I started paying attention to music and it would be a WRAP. I doubt i'd ever go back more than 10-15 years tops just to keep up with all the stuff thats coming out now. 

The point is, why listen to the oldies when there are literally HUNDREDS of new songs released daily in dozens of genres across thousands of blogs and other sources.

The diversity is too great to want to force people to accept the past so far back.

It would be nice, but its unrealistic, and its not an inherent obligation of the consumer either. 

 
 
.....interesting points made.
 
 
.....however, i can tell you, when i was exposed to greats like The Isleys, Al Green, James Brown, etc. it wasnt through the radio thats for sure. the radio back then did what the radio does now......play the same top 40 songs over and over and over.
 
 
...i dont quite remember how i came upon those artists i listed, but when i did i liked it and looked for more. i sure didnt discount it or mock it by calling it 'my grandfathers music' while moving on to something new, thats for sure.
 
 

For every name you list, I can show you a longer list of artists you've NEVER heard of and ask why you don't know them. 

   
 
*sigh*
 
 
.....you probably could. the difference between me and them though?
 
 
 
....the difference is if you showed me that list, my response would NEVER be:
 
 
"who? aw man thats @%$@ is old who cares?"
 
or
 
"that came out before i was born, it aint got @%$@ on this new stuff im listening to...."
 
or
 
"how am i supposed to know about artists that came out before i was born?"
 
 
 
NEVER in a million years.
 
i'd keep my mouth shut until i looked into said artist for myself and thanked whoever put me on......
 

 
 
 
 
....if you were reading you'd see that ive pointed this difference out twice already.
 
 
 
.....yeah, and this is coming from the same guy that said
 

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Scott Storch just made pop songs that no one will really remember like that. 

  
...yeah bruh, you kinda suck at this music thing. maybe you should stick to religious threads?
 
 
 
 

 
 

 

[dathbgboy]

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by LDJ

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

paul McCartney is a music god
mccartney had like 7 number one billboard albums after the Beatles

i mean we shouldnt go by accolades cause again thats racial bias and bandwagon jumping... mc hammer sold more then biggie is he a better rapper? waaay left field brittany spears or hell ashlee simpson has more hits then india arie... but is she better... i mean one didnt even sing write etc their on music and was caght red handed so....

actually that is the way it is. they are better artists because more people like their music and more people listen to it. and biggie only had 2 albums before death and 1 after and hammer got a bigger hit than biggie so thats not really a fair comparison.

Care to elaborate because by this standard YM is better than SH.
I feel ppl should know the history of their interests. U can't really argue w/ no backing and no knowledge of what u are arguing about.

 

[seasoned vet]

......you know what kills me about that elitist talk?
 
 

 
 
 
....there's a BIG difference between saying:
 
"who is Paul McCartney? someone put me on"
 
and
 
"Who tf is Paul McCartney? IDGAF"
 
 
.....isnt the 'IDGAF' part eliteist too?
 
 

 

[ldj]

a55a5in11 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by LDJ

a55a5in11 wrote:

---

actually that is the way it is. they are better artists because more people like their music and more people listen to it. and biggie only had 2 albums before death and 1 after and hammer got a bigger hit than biggie so thats not really a fair comparison.

which im saying doesnt make it truth... esp in the ashlee simpson or milli vanilli aspect they didnt even write etc perform the music so how can they be better if they didnt do anything. rhianna has sold more then fiona but one has here songs written for her, music produced for her etc... so how does that make a person a better artist if artistry is the work of art you did but you didnt even do it?  
well paul mccartney writes his own music soo... i dont see what you are getting at. your just proving my point.
but in the entertainment industry your measured off how much your peers enjoy listening to you compared to others. people for some reason choose rihanna and Brittany over fiona. 



you used sales and popularity and u said music artisty and i stated ppl who dont use either so your whole skill/artistry argument doesnt make sense... saying someone perfers another person because of talent etc and it isnt even them... thats like saying i get famous/say i drew a picture but didnt, but im a better drawer/artist then Michelangelo. beating a dead horse folks like say who is better etc based on race/society and whats told them   

 

[|A-Man|]

 

[a55a5in11]

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by LDJ



i mean we shouldnt go by accolades cause again thats racial bias and bandwagon jumping... mc hammer sold more then biggie is he a better rapper? waaay left field brittany spears or hell ashlee simpson has more hits then india arie... but is she better... i mean one didnt even sing write etc their on music and was caght red handed so....

actually that is the way it is. they are better artists because more people like their music and more people listen to it. and biggie only had 2 albums before death and 1 after and hammer got a bigger hit than biggie so thats not really a fair comparison.

Care to elaborate because by this standard YM is better than SH.
I feel ppl should know the history of their interests. U can't really argue w/ no backing and no knowledge of what u are arguing about.

more people listen which makes them more successful which makes them better at their job. which makes them better artists. 

 

[a55a5in11]

Originally Posted by LDJ

a55a5in11 wrote:

---

Originally Posted by LDJ



which im saying doesnt make it truth... esp in the ashlee simpson or milli vanilli aspect they didnt even write etc perform the music so how can they be better if they didnt do anything. rhianna has sold more then fiona but one has here songs written for her, music produced for her etc... so how does that make a person a better artist if artistry is the work of art you did but you didnt even do it?  

well paul mccartney writes his own music soo... i dont see what you are getting at. your just proving my point.
but in the entertainment industry your measured off how much your peers enjoy listening to you compared to others. people for some reason choose rihanna and Brittany over fiona. 

you used sales and popularity and u said music artisty and i stated ppl who dont use either so your whole skill/artistry argument doesnt make sense... saying someone perfers another person because of talent etc and it isnt even them... thats like saying i get famous/say i drew a picture but didnt, but im a better drawer/artist then Michelangelo. beating a dead horse folks like say who is better etc based on race/society and whats told them   

your going way off the track with this. the whole thing is McCartney being a music god. in the music industry your judged off success. nothing else. the more sales you have makes you the better artist. nobody goes into the music industry trying to not make #1 records. McCartney makes tons of #1 songs which makes him a music god

 

[shoesonmyfeet]

I ask my roomate who this dude was and he said he did not know, I asked him does he know the beatles and he said "John Lennon's group" lol

PLVN are you caucasain?

 

[vslackin]

I cannot believe people don't know who he is. One of the greatest musicians of all time with music that's still way better than today's garbage.

 

[deleted]

Yes I am a white person.

 

[dathbgboy]

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

Originally Posted by Dathbgboy

Originally Posted by a55a5in11

actually that is the way it is. they are better artists because more people like their music and more people listen to it. and biggie only had 2 albums before death and 1 after and hammer got a bigger hit than biggie so thats not really a fair comparison.

Care to elaborate because by this standard YM is better than SH.
I feel ppl should know the history of their interests. U can't really argue w/ no backing and no knowledge of what u are arguing about.

more people listen which makes them more successful which makes them better at their job. which makes them better artists. 

I have to disagree. Marketing plays a lot as well as the team behind the artist. U can't use listeners to determine if an artist is better or not. U forget a lot of tangibles that push an artist to the front or to the back.

 

[senatorjeffsmith]

Instead of attacking we should be suggesting albums and songs.

My recommendation:

Revolver

Spin this album and tell me what you think. It contains my favorite Paul Beatles song ("Here, There and Everywhere"). Then you'll want to explore the Beatles and McCartney catalog. Paul's creativity and versatility is incredible.The man has penned songs people will be listening to hundreds of years from now.

 

[deleted]

Here's a really good cover of "Because" that Elliott Smith did.

 

[whywesteppin]

True story

I'm waiting to get into a bar tonight and a random homeless guy asks me for change. I tell him "sorry." But instead of moving on, he then asks, "Do you know who Paul McCartney is?" And then he starts singing one of McCartney's songs (I think it was "Hey Jude"). This lasts for about a minute. I still had no change for him though.

I don't know what to take for this. Even homeless guys know who Paul McCartney is? Knowing who Paul McCartney is is nothing special? Or... Homeless guys read NT too?

 

[memphisboi55]

I don't be knowing half these celebs that be posted on NT lol

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by PLVN

Here's a really good cover of "Because" that Elliott Smith did.

 Don't even bring up Elliott Smith. If these dudes don't know who Paul is, bringing in Elliott will just open up another can of worms.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

LDJ

his group is... i respect and like him but i understand how why ppl think how they think and alot of it like dc said is social/race bias.... mj is seen as one of the greatest yet he didnt have the greatest voice, couldnt play a instrument, and didnt right his on songs... yet like i said prince who self taught 20+ instruments. wrote/compose over 1000 songs, isnt praised or seen in the same light. its all on who you are what you know and what you been exposed to

I agree about exposure  but MJ wrote billie jean, dont stop, wanna be startin,all of Bad album except for "man in the mirror", wrote most of dangerous, History and invincible.

Prince plays instruments beautifully(Him on Bass

), but the main instrument for a singer is their vocals. If you think MJ voice was not that great, Im sure you aware  prince isnt a great vocalist.

Writing is important, but Whitney was "The voice" and I dont think she wrote not one song.Prince songs were not everybody friendly, that diminished his audience a lot. 

 

[p0tat0 5alad]

I'm 21 and I know how Paul McCartney is. Did I win?

 

[goldenchild9]

Originally Posted by PLVN

Here's a really good cover of "Because" that Elliott Smith did.

No offense but this sounds terrible.

If this is representative of McCartney's brand of music I will wholeheartedly pass.

 

[erickm713]

Originally Posted by whywesteppin


I don't know what to take for this. Even homeless guys know who Paul McCartney is? Knowing who Paul McCartney is is nothing special? Or... Homeless guys read NT too?

There was this homeless guy in Houston who was always in front of the Galleria with his guitar playing Beatles song, I though it was 

 I gave him $20 and a pick last time I saw him.
But I don't expect the new generation of kids to know who the Beatles or who Paul McCartney is, I mean I'm 18 and the only reason I knew who he his is because I grew up listening to The Beatles because of my parents, and I just went on from that and they became my favorite band, but George Harrison is my favorite Beatle.

I don't think somebody judged because they don't know who someone is, some people were raised different and were around different music their whole life.

 

[hugebird]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

Originally Posted by PLVN

Here's a really good cover of "Because" that Elliott Smith did.

No offense but this sounds terrible.

If this is representative of McCartney's brand of music I will wholeheartedly pass.

Honestly, I don't think anyone is asking anyone to be a Beatles fan, but rather just that people who say that are fans of music are aware of one of the most famous musicians in the history of popular music.

Also, I'm a big Beatles fan, and I hate Elliot Smith, I'm with you on passing that %@*%.

 

[deleted]

Originally Posted by goldenchild9

No offense but this sounds terrible.

If this is representative of McCartney's brand of music I will wholeheartedly pass.

Truthfully that song really isn't indicative of McCartney's sound at all.

But you weren't going to give his music a shot anyway so....