Dumbest music article ever?

[npoguy]

I came across this article over the weekend in the Washington Post--typically one of our country's best newspapers. I'm still trying to figure what his point is and why he feels that we need to "let go" of certain artists in order for a new generation of music lovers to thrive. And, if so, why start with the Beatles? Why not Mozart, Bach, Sinatra, etc, etc.? Ordinarily, I would just let the article go by, but I'm scratching my head over why the Post felt it relevant enough to give it prominence on and offline!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-beatles-let-them-be/2013/07/19/467b3c2c-d2c4-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html

 

[DandyCobalt]

Don't worry, the comments that followed it all point in the direction that the guy can't write, and shouldn't really have an opinions column in the Washington Post.

 

[Paul.]

It's hit whoring plain and simple. These people get paid per click, so what better way than incensing their readership by slaying sacred cows?

 

[npoguy]

It's hit whoring plain and simple. These people get paid per click, so what better way than incensing their readership by slaying sacred cows?

I hate that I'm adding to his income |( , but it just seemed so strange for the Post to give it prominence on their home page.

 

[Frank Harvey]

Seems a pointless and useless piece by someone who seems to harbour a dislike for The Beatles.

Were the Stones and other bands as good or better than the Beatles? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not how it works. Kids will adopt who they want as their idols, just as they did with The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Nirvana etc, and if no one else has taken that place in teenager's walls, then that just proves that nothing else has 'spoken to them' in the way that past idols have (and still do).

I'm not saying the Beatles were completely original - wed have not had the likes of Nirvana, Oasis, Crowded House (this list could go on!) if it weren't for them - but until something comes along and speaks for a generation, they will continue - along with the likes of Kurt Cobain - to adorn teenage walls everywhere. I noticed over the weekend there was a startling number of young teens wearing Beatles t-shirts (and even my girlfriend's 10 year old daughter likes them!). Yes, it was surprising. Even more surprising than teenagers who wear Nirvana t-shirts, even though they weren't even born when Nirvana were dominating the music scene. But I also don't find it surprising, as there's a hell of a lot of crap out there, none of which can even be classed as good music, let alone decent enough for music lovers to swap out their treasured posters.

 

[Alec]

I agree with him, except where he says that the Beatles were a great band.

Oh, and it isn't true for me that the Beatles had more impact than Radiohead, really.