You know you are getting old when:

[Fading Fast]

The thing that gets me is that when I was a kid, I'd turn on the TV and see Benny Goodman or Lionel Hampton or Count Basie or Harry James performing on some PBS or variety show -- and they didn't seem old. I knew they were in their fifties or sixties, but they didn't seem old. But when I flip around and see some of these sixties or seventies-era rock stars grotesquely capering around, they look absolutely ancient. And ridiculous.

I agree (not so much with the "ridiculous" comment) but about a shifting perception of what is "old" in our society. I think it has to do with technology making skills and knowledge gained over a lifetime less important than being current with the newest technology.

When I was a kid, technology changed much more slowly, so the most valuable people where those with the most experience with the existing technology, processes, systems, methods, etc. Experience was greatly respected which went hand in hand with being older.

Back then, an older doctor had seen more - had more experience - and was valued more than a younger doctor who was still "learning." People weren't thinking that the older doctor wasn't up on the new technology (although, that was sometimes true), they were thinking about "experience," and a lifetime of knowledge.

The same went for teachers, policemen, lawyers, carpenters and on and on - life experience meant you were the best, most knowledgable person at your job - the young guys were "green," "wet behind the ears," "still learning on the job," etc. Hence, we valued and respected older people more and saw them as wise and valuable, not "out of touch," "behind the curve," etc.

While less applicable to musicians, the "respect for those with experience" meme of my youth drove the culture and mindset in a way that's been reversed today. I'm not saying this is absolute - the old were venerated then and only the young are today - but the relative societal view of the value of each - old vs. young - has changed.

 

[Trenchfriend]

The thing that gets me is that when I was a kid, I'd turn on the TV and see Benny Goodman or Lionel Hampton or Count Basie or Harry James performing on some PBS or variety show -- and they didn't seem old. I knew they were in their fifties or sixties, but they didn't seem old. But when I flip around and see some of these sixties or seventies-era rock stars grotesquely capering around, they look absolutely ancient. And ridiculous.

That's a thing, which makes me angry. Today, all these music-legends around don't want to draw a line under their careers and they are really willing to deconstruct their legends, as well. They are not comprehending, that great fame can fade, yet again.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We're running an excruciatingly long documentary about the Beatles this week, and sitting in the box office just now it's been instructive to see the parade of canes, walkers, and titanium kneecaps lining up for the matinee. I don't think I've seen a single person under 70 come thru the door since we've been running it.

The swing generation was only thirty to forty years out of date when I was listening its music as a kid. Beatlemania was more than half a century ago.

 

[Fading Fast]

We're running an excruciatingly long documentary about the Beatles this week, and sitting in the box office just now it's been instructive to see the parade of canes, walkers, and titanium kneecaps lining up for the matinee. I don't think I've seen a single person under 70 come thru the door since we've been running it.

The swing generation was only thirty to forty years out of date when I was listening its music as a kid. Beatlemania was more than half a century ago.

The Beatles broke up in 1970. While their influence continued and they acquired new fans, there is something different about the fan base of working band like the Rolling Stones versus the Beatles. The Stones stayed relevant until the early '80s and even had a modest resurgence of popularity with some younger fans in the early '90s when "Voodoo Lounge" came out.

And the Stones are still out there touring today as the Stones with three original member and one whose been with the band for 40+ years, versus the Beatles who stopped touring in '66 (50 years ago).

Having gone to Stones concerts and Paul McCarthy concerts - the different fan bases are noticeable. The Stones fans' age group is all over the map and reasonable evenly distributed (with a tilt toward older). While McCartney will also have every age group, he tilts very, very much to his contemporaries.

I assume the documentary you're running is the Ron Howard one? I know it's not your cup of tea, but how has the reception been? Also, do you know any Beatles "students" vs. just fans - what have they said about it?

 

[LizzieMaine]

It's well-done enough for a picture that doesn't particulary interest me -- the idea is capture the excitement of their live performances, but it just comes across as a lot of pointless screaming to me. I know teenage girls were throwing their underwear at Rudy Vallee in 1929, so this kind of stuff isn't strictly a "modern" thing, but no matter who they're screaming at, it strikes me as kind of dumb. Go scream on a picket line if you want to do something constructive.

One thing I did think was interesting was what our sound technician had to say about it -- he pointed out that there was no "sound system" as such at Shea Stadium in 1965 other than the PA horns used for ballgame announcements, and the small amps and speakers on the actual stage wouldn't have put anywhere near enough sound out to be intelligble to the crowd. The movie agrees, pointing out that those who were there heard little more than a lot of distortion, hash, and screaming. Thrillsville.

We got good crowds on opening night, but there's about twenty here for the matinee, all of them elderly folk.

 

[Fading Fast]

I've read similar things about the sound quality - which is part of the reason the Beatles gave for quitting touring - but it does say something about the passion they inspired that the fans still came. Ironically, it only took a few more years for sound systems to improve enough to make stadiums a reasonable venue to hear a concert - not great by today's standards, but meaningfully better than Shea in '66.

Rudy Vallée, Sinatra (don't know if there was flying underwear but definitely girls screaming), Elvis, the Beatles and on and on: The passion and sexual fission of youth needs an outlet.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

The difference between the Beatles and the Stones is that the Stones were primarily performers while the Beatles were primarily songwriters. How many people and bands have covered "Satisfaction"? (Jagger and Richardson) How many have covered "Yesterday"? (Lennon and McCartney) or "Something in the way she moves"? (Harrison). "Yesterday" is the most-covered song in history. The Beatles could afford to break up because their income from songwriting was vast and remains so. The Stones have lived from album to album and tour to tour.

 

[Fading Fast]

⇧ that all makes sense to me.

Just to be clear, my point had nothing to do with why the Beatles broke up, or why the Stones kept touring or the quality of one band versus the other (I was pro-actively trying to avoid that as the Stones vs. Beatles thing is whatever to me).

All I was trying to say was that the nearly 50 additional years of touring and producing new material explains why, today, the Stones have a more diverse age group amongst their fans.

 

[HudsonHawk]

How many people and bands have covered "Satisfaction"? (Jagger and Richardson)

A lot. Like probably 100 or more, including notable versions by everyone from Otis Redding to Devo to Britney Spears. The Stones have not been short on songwriting royalties. They were, like the Beatles however, shorted on publishing royalties, having signed away much of that in the early days. The Stones continue to make huge amounts of money from touring, so they're not exactly living hand to mouth.

And speaking of publishing rights, the Lennon-McCartney catalog will be begin reverting back to them in 2018. Not that they've been hurting for money either. They've made something like half a billion dollars for allowing iTunes to exist alone, in addition to their songwriting and other merchandising royalties. But as McCartney says..."I'm getting tired of having to pay someone every time I play Hey Jude or Yesterday."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Rudy Vallée, Sinatra (don't know if there was flying underwear but definitely girls screaming), Elvis, the Beatles and on and on: The passion and sexual fission of youth needs an outlet.

In the case of Frankieeeeeeeeeeeee, it later came out that a substantial number of the screaming bobby-soxer throngs at the Paramount Theatre were paid to be there by Frankieeeeeeeee's press agent. I'd be not at all surprised to learn that similar chicanery by the Boys was involved in the more explosive moments of Beatlemania.

I always thought Sinatra was the bunk, for what it's worth, at least until his voice changed.

 

[tonyb]

McCartney is a brilliant melodist. He has produced more catchy and/or pretty tunes than I can recall right off the top. I am confident that many of his songs will be played generations from now. They are of the cultural DNA.

As to Sinatra ...

If you have yet to read Gay Talese's "Frank Sinatra Has a Cold," do yourself a favor and do so soon.

 

[Hurricane Jack]

 

[Stearmen]

It's well-done enough for a picture that doesn't particulary interest me -- the idea is capture the excitement of their live performances, but it just comes across as a lot of pointless screaming to me. I know teenage girls were throwing their underwear at Rudy Vallee in 1929, so this kind of stuff isn't strictly a "modern" thing, but no matter who they're screaming at, it strikes me as kind of dumb. Go scream on a picket line if you want to do something constructive.

One thing I did think was interesting was what our sound technician had to say about it -- he pointed out that there was no "sound system" as such at Shea Stadium in 1965 other than the PA horns used for ballgame announcements, and the small amps and speakers on the actual stage wouldn't have put anywhere near enough sound out to be intelligble to the crowd. The movie agrees, pointing out that those who were there heard little more than a lot of distortion, hash, and screaming. Thrillsville.

We got good crowds on opening night, but there's about twenty here for the matinee, all of them elderly folk.

I am not sure if they showed it in the movie, but apparently, according to George, when the Lads were walking into the tunnel, Ringo said, "that was a great version of Love Me Do," and John said,"we didn't do Love Me Do!" So even Ringo could not hear a thing at the concert.

 

[Trenchfriend]

Exactly 54 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Me_Do

 

[Stearmen]

Exactly 54 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Me_Do

I forgot all about Andy white on drums! If he had been 10 years younger, he would have been the drummer. He was called the fifth Beatles, in fairness, there had already been five Beatles even before Ringo. John Lennon, Stuart "Stu" Sutcliffe, George Harrison, Paul McCartney, and Pete Best. Lady's and gentlemen, the Beatles!

 

[Edward]

That's a thing, which makes me angry. Today, all these music-legends around don't want to draw a line under their careers and they are really willing to deconstruct their legends, as well. They are not comprehending, that great fame can fade, yet again.

I don't know, I've seen plenty of older guys still up there doing it credibly. I saw the Stones in 99 (they've been too expensive for me since), and they were amazing. However ridiculous and pathetic both Jagger and Ronnie Wood are off stage, once they're up there, doing thir thing, it's something else. Iggy Pop still has it at nearly seventy, and I was at the Damned's 40th anniversary show last May - still have it. I adored the Sex Pistols' reunion, both for the fact they were GREAT ,and for the fact that they so gleefully smashed up a lot of the rock and roll mythology surrounding them ( the "talents" of Sid Vicious, the idea that they "couldn't play", and so on).

Hell, I saw Jerry Lee Lewis the week he turned eighty, and he still has it. Granted, some don't age well, but more do than it's popular to believe.

The difference between the Beatles and the Stones is that the Stones were primarily performers while the Beatles were primarily songwriters. How many people and bands have covered "Satisfaction"? (Jagger and Richardson) How many have covered "Yesterday"? (Lennon and McCartney) or "Something in the way she moves"? (Harrison). "Yesterday" is the most-covered song in history. The Beatles could afford to break up because their income from songwriting was vast and remains so. The Stones have lived from album to album and tour to tour.

For me they were always the equal of each other as writers, even if popular notions are that the Beatles are somehow untouchable because they weren't around to produce the "not quite a good as in the sixties" later work. Nothing Lennon / MacCartney wrot can better You can't always get what you want, for example - or Ruby Tuesday. The Stones, though, were the superior performers by far. If only the Beatles had retained smething of the Silver Beetles....

Mind you, I'd swap every single note the Beatles ever recorded for Brand New Cadillac. I still blame them and their insipid, tame Merseybeat sound for destroying British rock and roll, which had been very creative and healthy until the 50s ended in 1963...

A lot. Like probably 100 or more, including notable versions by everyone from Otis Redding to Devo to Britney Spears. The Stones have not been short on songwriting royalties. They were, like the Beatles however, shorted on publishing royalties, having signed away much of that in the early days. The Stones continue to make huge amounts of money from touring, so they're not exactly living hand to mouth.

And speaking of publishing rights, the Lennon-McCartney catalog will be begin reverting back to them in 2018. Not that they've been hurting for money either. They've made something like half a billion dollars for allowing iTunes to exist alone, in addition to their songwriting and other merchandising royalties. But as McCartney says..."I'm getting tired of having to pay someone every time I play Hey Jude or Yesterday."

A lot of big acts got shafted on the publishing rights back in the day. It still goes on, though many are more wary now. Intellectual Property law badly needs overhauled in order to better protect the creative source, instead of the industry being built around the middleman. As a trade-off, I'd more than happily concede a much shorter postmortem copyright period. Twenty-five years should be plenty; seventy is obscene.

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't know, I've seen plenty of older guys still up there doing it credibly. I saw the Stones in 99 (they've been too expensive for me since), and they were amazing. However ridiculous and pathetic both Jagger and Ronnie Wood are off stage, once they're up there, doing thir thing, it's something else. Iggy Pop still has it at nearly seventy, and I was at the Damned's 40th anniversary show last May - still have it. I adored the Sex Pistols' reunion, both for the fact they were GREAT ,and for the fact that they so gleefully smashed up a lot of the rock and roll mythology surrounding them ( the "talents" of Sid Vicious, the idea that they "couldn't play", and so on).

Hell, I saw Jerry Lee Lewis the week he turned eighty, and he still has it. Granted, some don't age well, but more do than it's popular to believe.



For me they were always the equal of each other as writers, even if popular notions are that the Beatles are somehow untouchable because they weren't around to produce the "not quite a good as in the sixties" later work. Nothing Lennon / MacCartney wrot can better You can't always get what you want, for example - or Ruby Tuesday. The Stones, though, were the superior performers by far. If only the Beatles had retained smething of the Silver Beetles....

Mind you, I'd swap every single note the Beatles ever recorded for Brand New Cadillac. I still blame them and their insipid, tame Merseybeat sound for destroying British rock and roll, which had been very creative and healthy until the 50s ended in 1963...



A lot of big acts got shafted on the publishing rights back in the day. It still goes on, though many are more wary now. Intellectual Property law badly needs overhauled in order to better protect the creative source, instead of the industry being built around the middleman. As a trade-off, I'd more than happily concede a much shorter postmortem copyright period. Twenty-five years should be plenty; seventy is obscene.

I saw the Stones last in the late '90s as well, nothing embarrassing at all - one insanely talented group that put on an absolutely kick *ss show. Mick is one of - if not the - best front men for a rock band ever. And, yes, the prices have gotten so stupid that I've lost interest in going (same for most live events as, something happened, and prices went nuts in the '00s for most live events).

As to copyright, I agree with you that it needs to be improved and I hate how much young groups and artists get cheated. The problem with a 25 year limit is that it "feels wrong" for an artist not to own their work for their entire life. If they don't, then we'll get the heartbreaking stories of fictional singer / songwriter Jane Smith who wrote some hugely successful song / album 50 years ago that is still bringing in tons of money, but she's in her '70s living in a homeless shelter.

I am sincerely not picking on you, as I agree with your premise, it is just very hard to strike the right balance when all the nuances and angles are considered.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The thing with copyright is that it isn't really being driven by solitary authors or artists -- it's being driven by the interests of corporate owners of valuable properties, most notably a certain round-eared goggle-eyed mouse. Every time said Mouse, or any essential element of such Mouse risks falling into the public domain, somehow, something happens to ensure that he does not. But somehow Ub Iwerks didn't die wealthy.

 

[HudsonHawk]

A lot of big acts got shafted on the publishing rights back in the day. It still goes on, though many are more wary now. Intellectual Property law badly needs overhauled in order to better protect the creative source, instead of the industry being built around the middleman. As a trade-off, I'd more than happily concede a much shorter postmortem copyright period. Twenty-five years should be plenty; seventy is obscene.

As I understand it (of course I'm not a lawyer), there are sort of two estates, if you will: songwriting and publishing. The Beatles, Stones, etc still get songwriting royalties, and always have. What they signed over was the publishing royalties; money from selling records, public performances of songs, use in other media etc, and of course perhaps more importantly to the artist, control of how and when songs are played/used.

Side note on one of my favorite publishing rights stories:
The closing scene in the movie The Big Lebowski uses a cover of the Stones' Dead Flowers performed by Townes Van Zandt (another on the American songwriters Mt. Rushmore). The story goes, the movie producers went to the Stones' publishing rep to ask for permission to use the song, and the rep was basically "eh...I don't really want to deal with this, find another song." The producers said we can't, we've already made the movie, it's there and it's perfect, but we can't release the movie without your permission...we really want to work this out. So in a move to entice a deal they flew the Stones' rep to L.A. for a preview of the film. It gets to the part in the film where the Dude is in the back of the taxi, after having been roughed up by the Malibu police, and he hears Peaceful Easy Feeling on the radio. He tells the cab driver to turn it off because "I hate the !@#$ing Eagles, man...". At that point the Stones' rep jumps up and says "OK, you can have the song." They never even got to the part that uses the song in question.

 

[Fading Fast]

The thing with copyright is that it isn't really being driven by solitary authors or artists -- it's being driven by the interests of corporate owners of valuable properties, most notably a certain round-eared goggle-eyed mouse. Every time said Mouse, or any essential element of such Mouse risks falling into the public domain, somehow, something happens to ensure that he does not. But somehow Ub Iwerks didn't die wealthy.

I am aware and agree with your comments, but that's the problem, too, how do you sort it all out - protect the artist while not giving others a free ride.

And more nuance, some artists sell their works early one before they know if it will be a monster hit as they want or need the money now; whereas, some companies have a business model of buying a bunch of early works knowing that some will be worthless and others will be gold (but they don't know which at the time of purchase).

Hence, when something does hit it big, it looks like another case of "the artist getting screwed" as the company rakes in the big bucks and the artist gets nothing further, but in this case, as long as force or fraud wasn't used to take the copyright from the artist, I'd say the deal is fare. Also, if we don't allow a decent amount of time for those copyright to survive - even in the hands of corporations - that initial sale to a company that helped the artist won't happen (remember, many of those copyrights don't become lucrative and the artist makes out - they just don't make the news later on as human interest stories).

Also, if Disney invests time and energy in Mickey, which they do, and he's not a drug to cure heart disease or a new computer chip, why should that no longer be their property? I really ask that - as I don't know the answer, but I'm not sure a company should lose their biggest mascot when there is not particular compelling public need to have universal access to Mickey Mouse.