Elvis Fu Wrote:
Cap'n Squirrgle Wrote:
McCartney = most historically successful / "significant" living rock star, no?
It's not really about 2012-[number of years] = Ok to not know who he is.
My brother was born in 1989. He know who McCartney is, but Paul hasn't had a hit in his entire lifetime. I think that does make a difference. We aren't a good sample, but how many of our peers knew who Glenn Miller was?
I also think context is important. I'd bet a lot of these people are aware that the Beatles existed, though they can't name all four. Same would happen with the Rolling Stones or Led Zeppelin.
We also realize a big part of this is cultural. How many white folks could name a single member of the Temptations, Four Tops or Boyz II Men?
In my years of teaching, not one of my kids, regardless of race could name a single member of any of those groups (Temps, Four Tops, B2M), although a few might be able to name some members of Zep or the Stones, but alot of them knew John and Paul and quite a few knew George and Ringo too. I started teaching in 99 and my kids in the chicago hood were completely unaware of wutang, tribe, bone, etc... that is to say, you could play them hits and they would be completely unfamiliar with the song, let alone who the performer was. When asked to name a motown artist, oftentimes the only name they would come up with was Michael Jackson. So to say it's cultural i think is not quite accurate. What I really think is that as music has become less of a physical artifact, we have fewer and fewer rabid music fans, and they were the only ones who ever bothered to learn names, read liner notes, lyrics etc...
_________________
Flying Rabbit Wrote:
I don't eat it every morning, I do however, pull it out sometimes.
