h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Why would anyone under the age of fifty want to go and watch the remaining Beatles live? or the Stones or anyone else who had their first hit 40 YEARS AGO. Are they going to go on and make fools of themselves like Sinatra. ?

I, personally, am under fifty. In fact, I'm under fourty, thirty, and twenty. I'm not quite 19. And though I wouldn't particularly want to see a Beatles Reunion minus Lennon, I would love to see Paul McCartney live, because he can still sing, and he still rocks. I was going to see the Stones when they passed through my town a couple of years ago, (had tickets and everything) but something came up, and my parents (father is now 50, my mom's 30 years older than I am) went instead, and my father says that they weren't particularly making fools of themselves. Keith Richards can still play a mean guitar, Mick still has the lungs, and the lips, and they're an even tighter group than they were 40 years ago. They've had alot of practice.

I will not try to defend Sinatra, but remember, Carlos Santana had his first hit about 30 years ago, and he had his first grammy nomination this year for an awesome album. Musical preference is up to you, and I won't bash you, but music is music, and if they can still play, still sing, there's no reason people won't come to see.

~Irving

Hi Irving - nothing personal. It's a good intro. It's just that having seen these guys and loved them and bought the records in the sixties, I'd rather remember them when they _could_ sing. Agreed they can still play a bit but nothing like the standard of their / my youth.I'd rather remember the super stuff than watch grandfathers rock. You can put this down to simple jealousy. I didn't indulge in banned substances and these guys make it look as if they didn't either I agree they've had a huge influence on almost everything since the sixties, but if I was your age I'd be spending the music money on current artists

Most current artists don't play like Eric Clapton (whom I've seen live). As far as looking like they haven't indulged in banned substances... Keith Richards definately LOOKS like he's used a few

Honestly, for me it comes down more to musical preference when I'm buying CDs, and live... well, given a chance to see a real live legend is hard to pass up. And most of the time the only thing that's really changed is how much they jump around on stage (The Who weren't quite as spastic as they used to be when I saw them). But they're only a little older than my Dad in most cases, and far from out of energy. Again, it's only opinion. I understand where you're coming from. Oh, and as far as money goes... most of the concert tickets and Beatles CDs I own? My dad bought for me

~Irving

Bob Dylan, on the other hand, probably should retire, though I'm glad I can say I saw him live with Paul Simon.

~Irving

I'm 16 and they're still my favorite. I guess seeing them live is sort of a novelty... I feel disconnected with their music because I wasn't alive then, but I can still see them live if the chance ever comes around. I saw the Moody Blues... old, yes, but still playing music, and that's important still, I guess.

I never really got into the Moody Blues. Maybe what Wandrin'star is really bothered by is that the Beatles and their contemporaries were rebelious music of a rebelious age. Kid's who listened to the Beatles didn't listen to their parent's music, and that was the point. But we're doing just that, listening to our parents' music -- to us it's not rebelion, it's just good songwritting.

~Irving

PS -- My father hates REM, and I like them, if it makes you feel better, Wandrin'star

A bit. You've picked up both my points,I think: 1) music has moved in the last 40 years. I think the young and struggling should be supported before the old and rich who are losing their voice or their hair. 2) One of the reasons for the sweeping changes in polular music is that it _does_ give you a safe rebellion. I suppose if my father had bought me tickets for his favourites I'd have gone and maybe enjoyed the evening, but I hated them on TV partly because they were no longer young and sexy.

I don't know what it is with Dylan. I saw him in 97 with Ani DiFranco, and he was horrible. Granted this was just after he'd been released from the hospital (I forget why exactly) but it wasn't just energy level that was lacking. The arrangements were all the same: Dylan strums and sings the song at mid tempo, then plays lengthy acoustic guitar solos that show us why he's better known for his lyrics, and then the song ends. Most of the songs were from that period between his Christian days and the mid 90s when nobody was really aware that he was still alive, and as the arrangements sucked and the lyrics were mumbled, there really wasn't anything to do but wait for him to play something recognizable. The highlight of the show was toking while he sang Rainy Day Women- the security knew they didn't stand a chance when he started it, and it made the rest of the show more bearable. However, his most recent album, from what I've heard of it, seems to be an improvement. If he'd tour with a band like that in a smaller venue, I'd pay quite a price to be there.

To address quickly the comments about the Beatles and the Stones, I would like to first say that It's all rock and roll. To understand anything completely, you should start at the beginning, and see why it all started, and where it all went. I love rock and roll (most of it). I love the stones, lou reed, NoFX, The Wallflowers, and just about any incarnation before or since the british invasion. As a struggleing young musician, I play lots of stones, and Beatles covers. The first song I learned was "Yellow Submarine." and just yesterday, I learned "Sympathy For the Devil," "Satisfaction," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want." If there weren't somebody's Grandpa on stage wailing out his best on his favorite, thirty-year-old Vintage Les Paul (With custom tripple humbuckers) then I couldn't sit at home, strumming my rather new Yamaha acoustic, and writing something new that the band will just go ape over (I think Jake might want to try with a heavy alternative beat,and Chelsea just might want to lay a heavy solo over after the second verse.) Know what I mean, man?

Oh, and Dylan's always been like that, as far as I can tell from his recordings. I would love to see him live, not because it's a show, but because it's Dylan. It's something magical.

-Jefferey P. Hart
Rythym Guitarist, not quite eighteen.

No offense, but... I can't believe people are still posting here. Wow.

I too was rather surprised. I think it's great that you've learnt to play the old stuff. I'd even support buying the old records (especially in 2nd hand stores) but go and see your contemporaries live if you can(don't pay to see your grandmother's millionaire contemporaries). David Bowie at Glastonbury proves my point I think