Twitter Doesn't Know Who Paul McCartney Is, Thanks Kanye For 'Discovering' Him

www.techtimes.com ^ | 01/05/2015 | Staff

[Red Badger]

It's becoming more and more apparent that a new generational gap is forming. Whereas one generation didn't grow up with iPhones and high-speed internet, the newest generation sees these things as everyday commodities. It's natural for gaps like this to form, and with those gaps come plenty of hilarious consequences.

With how quickly technology is advancing, these gaps show themselves more frequently nowadays. There are the usual complaints (like 'those darn kids never put their phones down'), but it's really the disconnect between the two generations that stings. For instance, it seems unimaginable that the younger generation doesn't know who the Beatles are.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened this past week after a collaboration between Kanye West and the legendary Paul McCartney debuted. It's hard to imagine that McCartney would ever be 'discovered' by Kanye West, but according to Twitter, that's how it happened:

OVOJosh @OVOJosh Follow

I don't know who Paul McCartney is, but Kanye is going to give this man a career w/ this new song!! 9:27 PM - 1 Jan 2015

As is the usual, Twitter was soon overtaken with tweets about the aging Beatles star. Aside from the standard outrage, there were plenty of tweets that were obviously sarcastic: people trolling for a quick laugh at the younger generation's expense. That being said, many of the tweets asking who this 'Paul McCartney' guy was seemed legit:

Justin Morello @Morello_Justin Follow

Kanye West really knows how to expose great new talent. Bet this Paul McCartney guy is gonna be HUGE after this song. 8:12 PM - 2 Jan 2015

Cocolish @BeCoco77 Follow While seeing a story like this is still all sorts of sad, it's really just a byproduct of aging in a culture that glorifies a new celebrities seemingly every 15 minutes. Sir McCartney has seen something of a career revival over the past few years, and in the end, the older generation should just be happy that the newer, younger generation is being exposed to the legendary performer. After all, how many people went out and researched his music once all of this started? There are going to be hundreds of new Beatles fans once all of this is done; it's almost guaranteed. Even so, that doesn't stop tweets like this from summing up how we feel: There's a whole generation of people that think Kanye is about to make Paul McCartney a super star. Epic fail folks. End times are near. 8:33 AM - 5 Jan 2015

[a fool in paradise]

If you want to look at numbers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3236284/posts?
The World's Highest-Paid Musicians Of 2014 (Dr. Dre made $600million this year)
Forbes ^ | December 29, 2014 issue of Forbes | Zack O’Malley Greenburg

1 - Dr. Dre $620,000,000
2 - Beyonce $115,000,000
3 - The Eagles $100,000,000
4 - Bon Jovi $82,000,000
5 - Bruce Springsteen $81,000,000
6 - Justin Bieber $80,000,000
7 - One Direction $75,000,000
8 - Paul McCartney: $71 million
9 - DJ Calvin Harris $66,000,000
10 - Toby Keith $65,000,000
11 - Taylor Swift $64,000,000
12 (3 way tie)
Bruno Mars $60,000,000
Jay Z $60,000,000
Diddy $60,000,000 br /

[Steve_Seattle]

"The big band era bands are like comparing the Beatles to the bands of 1991-1994."

I'm confused; are you complementing or criticizing the big bands, or are you complementing or criticizing The Beatles?

[Verbosus]

North?
I thought I heard him say the child was named “Norph”.

[Steve_Seattle]

It’s interesting that four - arguably five (Toby Keith) - of the top ten acts are “oldies” acts.

[Sirius Lee]

Fifty years ago, how many teenage Beatles fans knew about music from 1915. That would be the equivalent.

OTOH, a goodly portion of Beatles fans knew the music of Scott Joplin, thanks to the movie, The Sting.

[Borges]

Not in the ‘60s they didn’t. The Sting came out in 1973. But something like the Maple Leaf Rag was always known.

[Steve_Seattle]

"OTOH, a goodly portion of Beatles fans knew the music of Scott Joplin, thanks to the movie, The Sting."

Very little material from the 1915-era was preserved at all, and the primitive technology rendered it almost unwatchable. The comparison to 1915 was not apt because of the vast changes in technology and the vast proliferation of media in the post-war (WWII) years.

[a fool in paradise]

Elvis recorded a lot of songs from the 1920s-40s.

Henry Burr - Are You Lonesome Tonight (1927)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmBg8hHYoSI
Al Jolson added the monologue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvb9XFgzNMY

Bunny Berigan - Blue Moon (1934)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgxDGDAAaBw

Glenn Miller - Blueberry Hill (Billboard No.10 1940)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooYmgwrxnbs

[a fool in paradise]

I’m saying that the era of the big bands was 1940s (war years), which was 20 years prior to the Beatles (recording years).

20 years ago from now is 1994/5. The Beatles had been active a few years already (not just the US releases of the albums) so roll it back to 1991 or 1992.

[a fool in paradise]

The Sting was 1973. Several years after the Beatles broke up.

[Steve_Seattle]

Ok, now I understand your point.

[a fool in paradise]

There were vestiges of 1920s music in popular entertainment in part because Ed Sullivan gave air time to old vaudeville acts.

Then there were the variety shows (sometimes hosted by former vaudeville performers like Jack Benny or George Burns, in addition to song and dance numbers of shows like Laugh-In).

[Steve_Seattle]

"It's becoming more and more apparent that a new generational gap is forming."

I don't have a lot of confidence in the present generation's knowledge of the past, but it's kind of a cheap shot to pick out a few comments from social media and present them as representative. I would guess that millions of people under the age of thirty know who Paul McCartney is.

[a fool in paradise]

I look at that list and I say that’s a hell of a lot of money.

There’s a dropoff of course but even the Beatles didn’t make that kind of cash when they were a band.

It may be an unrealistic expectation. Certainly every festival concert isn’t Woodstock or Isle of Wight with 500,000+ people.

I also hear that tracked hit album sales are down. But there are so many more active musicians. And corporate chain performance venues that did not exist 30 years ago.

Used album sales never get tallied by the music business either. Between Amazon and ebay, you’ll find millions of used recordings for sale.

The industry is trying to add (free) streaming plays to the qualifiers for “top artist of the year” (making streaming plays more valuable than actual sales). When a listener parts with his or her money, it means something. Anything else is striving for bragging rights.

[Sirius Lee]

Very little material from the 1915-era was preserved at all, and the primitive technology rendered it almost unwatchable.

I assure you, sheet music from the turn of the century was still available and decypherable in the late 60's and early 70's. This primitive technology, print, is still extant. It is how music has been, and continues to be, conveyed down through the centuries.

It's not my problem if certain people are either ignorant or retarded to the point that nothing exists in their world unless they have "watched" it.

[Inyo-Mono]

I can tell you though, having been a new teenager when the Beatles first hit the American airwaves, I sure knew who Rudy Vallee was, and recognized the parody when the New Vaudeville Band released "Winchester Cathedral" with the singer sounding like he was singing through a megaphone.

Exactly! I knew that it was a parody of Rudy Vallee too. I was 14 when The Beatles first hit America in 1964, and no one, with the exception of Elvis, was as well known back then. As you said everyone in the Western World knew who The Beatles were.

[Sirius Lee]

The Sting was 1973. Several years after the Beatles broke up.

Thanks for the heads up that nobody on the planet listened to, nor heard of the Beatles, let alone were fans, after they broke up. That changes everything.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I assure you, sheet music from the turn of the century was still available and decypherable in the late 60's and early 70's. This primitive technology, print, is still extant. It is how music has been, and continues to be, conveyed down through the centuries. It's not my problem if certain people are either ignorant or retarded to the point that nothing exists in their world unless they have "watched" it."

Seriously, how many people obtain their primary exposure to music via buying sheet music? It is an absurd argument. The only people who buy sheet music are musicians who can read music but can't figure out the songs - songs they've already heard somewhere - on their own, or - as in my case - wanted to see what the guitar chords were.

[__rvx86]

I meant classic rock in general...the thread had diverged slightly by that point...

[greene66]

Also, there were a ton of familiar standards from the 1920s that got ‘revived’ in movie-musicals from the late-40s/1950s, in addition to tv-airplay. It kept alive a lot of old tunes, for later generations. Even cartoons utilized them.

A lot of younger people would hear these tunes and not even realize at the time that they were ‘not’ contemporary.