Tune in at 16:00 London, 19:00 UAE

Live from Abu Dhabi Connect the World takes you on a journey across continents, investigating the stories that are changing our world.

Live from Abu Dhabi Connect the World takes you on a journey across continents, investigating the stories that are changing our world.

Why do rock dinosaurs still walk the earth?

September 8th, 2009
11:13 AM ET

It's like they’ve never been away. The Beatles, the most popular band the world has seen, are enjoying blanket media coverage ahead of the release of their remastered back catalogue and the video game "The Beatles: Rock Band," in which fans can pretend to be Paul, John, Ringo or George.

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/04/beatles.999/art.beatles.rockband.courtesy.jpg
caption="The new Beatles videogame allows fans to strum along with their musical heroes."]
There’s also intense speculation that the Wednesday release will coincide with tracks by the Fab Four finally being made available on iTunes.

They're not the only rock giants of the lost four decades to have parlayed their back catalogue and reputation into profits.

Abba songwriters Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson turned their hits from the 1970s and 1980s into the musical Mamma Mia!, which was then adapted for the big screen and took more than $600 million worldwide.

U2, who first found fame in the early 1980s, are now well into their mammoth 360 Tour, while smaller bands such as New Romantic outfit Spandau Ballet have announced reunion plans.

Are the Beatles the best band of all time?
Even punk act Public Image Ltd. (PiL), fronted by punk godfather John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) this week said that they are about to return.

But why are such blasts from the past able to enjoy successful revivals? Is it because today’s musical acts can't compare to such past masters?

Or are gullible fans of rock dinosaurs simply being fooled into paying for the same music time and again? Should acts from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s simply bow out gracefully and make way for new talent?

Send your comments and we will use some of them in tonight’s show.


Filed under:  General
soundoff (76 Responses)
  1. Yvonne

    Whilst in those heady 60's I was a big Rolling Stones fan, have no problem with release of old Beetles material, as long as the surviving members GIVE THE MONEY TO CHARITY. They surely can't need it!

    September 8, 2009 at 11:25 am | Reply
  2. Jack Quann -Dublin, Ireland

    It just seems like, even though their 'hay-day' is well & truly over, they keep finding new (& somewhat annoying) ways to try and make money. Yes, they were excellent musicians -WERE being the operative word- now let go with a little dignity.

    September 8, 2009 at 11:27 am | Reply
  3. BobB

    The TV commercials for “The Beatles: Rock Band" only began 2 days ago, so how can I be overdosed on them already?

    Things I am overdosed on are Michael Jackson's death, and the coverage of the politics of the health care debate.

    CNN just gives us the 2 or 3 stories, over and over and over and over, because it does not want to spend the money to cover the news.

    September 8, 2009 at 11:35 am | Reply
  4. BobB

    Nobody is forcing anyone to listen to The Beatles or U2. It is purely voluntary. In particular, The Beatles are barely "on air" these days, you really have to seek them out.

    Contrast this with "hip hop" and "rap", which have the intellectual and musical appeal of classical opera or old school "country western". Hip hop and rap permeate the air waves and are rammed up our ear canals.

    September 8, 2009 at 11:40 am | Reply
  5. Jack Sprat

    Rock Dinosaurs? New talent? Where?

    The Beatles remain a vibrant cultural force today because the most mundane of their music is far and away better than anything being released my the record companies today.

    The triumph of the Beatles was an utterly unique combination of musical genius, performance skill, personality and publicity. Album after album of brilliant, memorable, singable hit songs, combined with a growing sensibility about key social issues.

    There have been and will continue to be new bands with something to say and the talent to create great music. Most of them owe a major debt to the Beatles, directly or indirectly. If you can't see the relevance of the Beatles then and now, then perhaps you just don't like music.

    September 8, 2009 at 11:46 am | Reply
  6. ke

    Take a look, or listen to todays "music", no wonder the dinosaurs are still around.
    yo yo yo they don't even play instruments

    The old bands from the 60's and 70's are looking around at the lack of talent and figuring out they still rule, because people still want to see musicians play, not just a bunch of jumping, pointing pissed off sideways hats.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:00 pm | Reply
  7. Billy Shears

    Call them what you want, but the impact the Beatles have had on the world of music since the early 60's has eclipsed anything they accomplished while they were still together. While much of their music sounds dated, much of it does not. The fact of the matter is that the Lennon/McCartney songwriting team was the best songwriting team of the latter half of the 20th century, which is keenly displayed by the vast number of performers from all walks of life performing Beatle music.
    Harrison was no slouch, either. Great songwriting + great music wins every time. Besides, they were the perfect band for a very special time in modern Western history.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:07 pm | Reply
  8. Malcolm McLaren

    "Call all hippies boring old farts, and set light to them!"
    -The Great Rock'n'Roll Swindle (1980)

    September 8, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Reply
  9. Jim Smith, João Pessoa, Brazil

    If you like a group or a particular song, buy it and listen to it. Personally, I already have all the Beatle's tracks I want, so I couldn't care less about anything "new". But I also have all the Beethoven recordings I want, too. So enough, already.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:33 pm | Reply
  10. Dee

    It was well rounded by a subtitle from another news-website: "All you need is cash". So how much of cash you still need, Paul McCartney? And, on top of all, what about any progress in music? :/

    September 8, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Reply
  11. Mat

    The BEatles are the basis for most of modern music and let's face it, the quality of modern releases pales in comparison: artists can put out a couple of over-produced hit songs but never a balanced full-length album like artists from the previous generation could.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Reply
  12. Kev3d

    The cynical tone of the piece exposes an extreme lack of understanding of what the Beatles are all about and why it still resonates today.
    Hey, I have a great idea for a piece; "Why do people still crowd into the Louvre to look at old paintings?" Its a rather philistine attitude that would dare accuse fans of being "Gullible". Such fans are NOT buying the same music over and over again, except when the technology progresses and the quality increases, as is the case with all recordings. It's simply great to listen to and in the case of Rockband, fun to play. So for the cynics, let them criticize while they admire the musical equivalent of "Dogs Playing Poker". Real music connoisseurs can continue to enjoy the equivalents of Rembrandt and Renoir.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:40 pm | Reply
  13. Jake Slatnesky

    The headline and premise of this article already sets the entire tone in a negative slant. But for what purpose? Is it the Australian tall-poppy syndrome crossing-over to American culture? Cut the Beatles down just because they've had their turn at phenomenal success? Another writer posted his weariness of the (continuing) Michael Jackson coverage. The Beatles catalog was JUST RELEASED, why pose the suggestion that boredom is even possible?

    The Beatles, followed by the Stones, followed by the Who, Led Zeppelin and a legion of amazing musical talent from that era are being revisited and appreciated by young people today, around the world. And it doesn't matter about the money. They're still selling a good and viable product, it's their business. That's not and has never been the public's concern. Buy it, steal it, but don't complain about it.

    By the way and since nobody else is asking: enough about MJ.

    September 8, 2009 at 12:51 pm | Reply
  14. james garwood

    Never, BUT making a fuss over MJ daily is pathetic.. The Beatles do not carry the stigma of drugs perversion and a questionable past.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Reply
  15. Michael Hunt

    Neither Ringo nor Paul own the rights to their own music, the Jackson estate does. They make little money off their own catalogue. I'm surprised CNN didn't cover that, since Michael Jackson makes up about 90% of their "news".

    September 8, 2009 at 1:05 pm | Reply
  16. virgo bon cruz

    Frankly I'm sick and tired of all these Beatles stuff. There were good rock bands before them, they're were just the first group to discover and exploit the fact that being nonconformists in an age of uncertainty and confusion would surely bring them great fortune.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm | Reply
  17. Julio Cubillo

    For me the music ended up with the 80's. All that came after that it's just comercial product. We just have music for dancing, not music that tells u something important. That's why we love the music of that incredible era when every song could be a clasic. That time will not come back.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:33 pm | Reply
  18. Katharine

    The Beatles will live on forever, no matter what new talent is just around the bend. I am a 26-year-old hardcore Beatles fan! Their music and lyrics span all generations and cultures and will continue to do so for generations to come. Just this week I had an 8 year old bring the White Album to school as one of his "5 Things About Me" to share with our class! I teach at an International school in Barcelona and was so excited that children so young still know who the Beatles are, and enjoy their music, just as I did growing up. The current hype will only expose more people to the genius that is The Beatles, and create more, completely justifiable, BEATLEMANIA!

    September 8, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Reply
  19. Rob

    But why are such blasts from the past able to enjoy successful revivals? Is it because today’s musical acts can’t compare to such past masters?

    Yes. Today's music sucks. The only thing today's young musicians have to write about is how life sucks to the one or two de-tuned power chords they only know. Maybe if they put down the video game & actually went outside to experience life while they were growing up, they could write great songs like the blasts from the past.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:42 pm | Reply
  20. Pat

    I don't mind them releasing all their albums remastered which do sound much better than the first and only release on CD more than a decade ago. It's much better than other artists who put out album after album of the SAME songs on different greatest hits packages. I think the worst offender in this regard is Rod Stewart.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:56 pm | Reply
  21. djfinny

    I have to wonder if the author of this poll has ever listened to music. Why are some of these bands still around? Easy, 95% of music today is recycled trash. Many "bands" today have little or no talent. They are 110% marketed by AT&T or some other giant corporate entity so any creative idea that someone might have to create something interesting is squashed in the name of the test market "tried and true" selling approach. Risk takes a back seat to the bottom line. And that's too bad, because I know there's still good music being made today – it's just a little tricky to find it becuase it's not on the radio.

    Sure, the Beatles, U2, Rolling Stones, Elvis had managers, marketing guys etc. But the difference was they were still able to create their own music. The producers back in the day (even) allowed them to experiment and create some new sounds of their own. – They even took chances (gasp!) Not all of it was great music, but the bands learned and grew musically. That 'chance' stuff will not fly in todays mainstream music. Too mush $$$ involved.

    Are the Beatles getting too much attention? I don't think so. I think it's nice to celebrate their special music once and a while, maybe it will inspire someone to create some new, vibrant sounds that others will enjoy. So I guess in the end, think about this: If humans are around in 500 – 1000 years from now and a class is offered on classical music or music theory, there will a chapter on Beethoven, Bach, Chopin etc. And I'd bet The Beatles as well.

    September 8, 2009 at 1:58 pm | Reply
  22. Vocs

    First off; Due to the fact that the music industry had never had such a phenomenon as The Beatles up to that point their manager Brian Epstein failed to negotiate an anywhere near decent deal for The Beats and as such they were woefully UNDERpaid for their records. During their prime the Beatles were making around ONE PENNY per album and that was divided by four! So the money issue and the making of it is being propagated by the record companies – who stand as ALWAYS is the case to make the most from this.

    The Beatles songs are SO well crafted, written, and performed that the recording quality or timeliness is an utterly moot point! The music of the Beatles is anything but dated: The shimmering, chiming opening chord strike of A Hard Day's Night is as engaging, exciting, and gripping as the day it was released 4 decades ago! The fact remains that there are few songs in the world of pop music as simply and unaffectedly outright catchy as Beatles' songs are.

    Therein lies their timeless strength: The concise genius distillate of a Beatles' song.... Catchiness, tunefulness melodicism, harmonics, killer hooks and riffs – the world begins and ends in 2 minutes and twenty-five seconds.

    No group quite blended the myriad forms and genres of music in quite the way with such seamless consistency as did the Beatles.
    From the nascent fundamentals of country, folk, rock, soul, blues, classical, and even calypso the Beatles wove a new tapestry that would define pop rock music.

    The chance to hear these songs in higher definition, resolution, and sound quality is time and energy well spent. With all the faceless, souless, heartless sonic pablum being churned out by talentless artistes being recorded with the finest that cutting edge sonic technologies have to offer it'll be a true treat to hear the music of a uniquely talented and gifted group treated with the respect it inarguably deserves!

    Pop music simply does not get better or more solid than the Beatles.... and hasn't!

    September 8, 2009 at 2:02 pm | Reply
  23. Andrew Hubbard

    The early Beatles were a bunch of white boys very good at sanitizing black folk’s music. They had their moments, that's for sure, but much of their music, especially that early stuff, was smarmy and sentimental to the point of being irritating, whereas the music they were ripping off was deeply emotional and gut wrenching. I honestly think a lot of the hype about them is just that . . . hype. People love legends, whether they deserve to be legends or not. Of course the Beatles were great, in their way, but there were many of their contemporaries were, in my opinion, much better, more interesting, more groundbreaking, and far more soulful and emotionally evocative, not to mention funky.

    As for the music of today, to simply some it up as “sucking” is absurd. It is firstly so varied and expansive, especially as opposed to the music of the 60s and 70s, that any general comment is utterly inane and pointless. Furthermore, if you have ears and actually know how to use them you’ll find lots of great music happening here and now that is as good or better than anything the Beatles had to offer. Open up your minds and your ears and stop being so judgmental. You sound like the old farts in the 60s sounded when they complained about those noisy long-hairs from Liverpool. Get out and live a little for God’s sake and stop living in the past!

    September 8, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Reply
  24. vk

    All USA n UK hyped up bull'shit

    September 8, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Reply
  25. n

    I don't think this is too much coverage for The Beatles... They were really good rock band and their music still influences the young 'talent' of today... It's not common that a band does not play their own music these days.. which is sad.. they could learn from the greats like the Beatles, U2, Elvis etc etc...

    September 8, 2009 at 2:17 pm | Reply
  26. Jeff Harr

    For anyone who says "the Beatles are still popular today because today's music is trash" I say this: the Beatles are largely responsible for the record companies' dominance over the airwaves in this day and age, and if you ask a truly savvy music fan today where all the good music is, I guarantee they are not going to tell you to turn on your car radio.

    The reason people are listening to the Beatles is because they are either too lazy to dig a little for better music, enjoy repetition to a large degree, or are so used to being force fed anything that pops up on the car stereo that they need the societal comfort that the record companies are so eager to provide.

    If you think today's music is bad, then I urge you to do a little research and put a little effort into locating music that you DO like. Other countries, music exploration sites like last.fm and pandora, streaming internet radio... these are all options for today's music listener to expand their tastes. Everything is so accessible today, there's really no excuse for sitting on your porch in your rocking chair listening to "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and shaking your cane at kids on your lawn.

    September 8, 2009 at 2:27 pm | Reply
  27. YoungPoot

    All this Beatles mania is just the self-centered Baby Boomer generation navel-gazing again. As they do constantly. Because anything worthwhile didn't exist before they discovered it, and nothing worthwhile will ever be produced once they are gone. Yawn.

    September 8, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Reply
  28. JP

    Beatles vinyl LPs and EPs always sounded better to my ears than the CDs, which didn't do the music justice.

    Although I mistrust and tend to dislike revisionism when applied to artistic material, I suspect that the Beatles' music might actually benefit from the digital remastering process, so yes – they've got me on the hook.

    Mono or stereo – THAT is the only question in my mind at this point...

    September 8, 2009 at 2:32 pm | Reply
  29. Drew

    I hope that there are at least some people around who can enjoy music that was produced in the past. The tone of this article tries to validate the marketing concept of 'music as commodity', as though old music and old performers go bad like a quart of milk forgotten in the back of the fridge.

    I hope new generations of music listeners get a chance to be familiar with the Beatles if they are moved to. I certainly would have never learned to love big band swing, bossa nova, or beebop if I were restricted to the classic rock, r & b, and new-wave pop that I grew up on.

    There's plenty of room for artists whose creative period is largely past. As long as they can still play their instruments and remember their songs, let them play. At the very least it helps to ground new music in the past, and can help set the bar higher for new performers.

    Aside from some of the DJ-centered genres, most contemporary music has strong roots in styles that were developed 30-60 years ago. The Killers? Try listening to Duran Duran and the Pixies. Whoever is the rapper of the moment? He owes a debt to Run DMC, Kurtis Blow, etc., etc. And Macy Gray and Beyonce know full well that they have to live up to the legacy of everyone from Billie Holliday to Diana Ross to Chaka Khan to Whitney Houston.

    So it's kind of absurd to take a position that 'old' music is a rip off. Any new artist who doesn't know the history that stands behind him or her? That's the true rip off.

    September 8, 2009 at 2:37 pm | Reply
  30. Anice Hassim

    To put the Beatles and Spandau Ballet in the same sentence pretty much says it all... Becky, the Beatles are a phenomenon of culture, art, expression that really connects with people in a visceral way.

    I have a different view of the world we should live in after appreciating the music and lyrics of the Fab Four – I enjoy Spandau Ballet, but I wouldn't regard any of the bands being mentioned in the article as examples of old rockers rolling on as having changed the world.

    The Beatles were the real deal and I was born just a couple of years before they split up, so I have no recollection of Beatlemania to go on – just their music.

    September 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm | Reply
  31. Tony Salieri

    This is not even an issue, but a grenade toss to goose us into filling this page with idiocy. The topic is not moot, but self explainative; sales will tell the story, but the fact is most rock originals are unsurpassed and will remain so because their time will never be repeated. These digital Beatles are a different experience, and their excellent music is their only selling point (even if it's not THEIR money now, you ahistorical dunces!), so please pull up a chair if you want to wait for the Lady Gaga issue of Pop Band. I don't see it coming...

    September 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Reply
  32. nat123

    im only 17 and still in high school and yes i see alot of kids at my school wearing beatle shirts and it disturbes me because ive been a beatles fan my whole life. since the rockband: beatles edition came out EVERYONE started talking about them in my school and i hate it because everyone started listening to them and saying that there "ok" and that pisses me off!! i wish everyone would leave them alone cuzz its hard to find a true fan these days.... i just wish this never came out.

    September 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm | Reply
  33. Panga

    I am not only bored over Beatles, i am also bored over the hype for Twitter.

    September 8, 2009 at 3:27 pm | Reply
  34. dj_dialogic

    Their era is over. This game will flop

    September 8, 2009 at 3:53 pm | Reply
  35. Fhog

    Im sorry but thats like going upto Austria and going 'OMG WILL YOU PLEASSEEEE LET GO OF MOZART; STOP LIVING IN THE PAST' But how is anyone living in the past when the music will live for ever and ever. Enjoy them because Mozart had his century and the Beatles certainly have the 20th Century hands down. PB.

    September 8, 2009 at 4:07 pm | Reply
  36. Frank

    You have to remember that no one had heard music like the Beatles before. They led a musical pathway for a generation in the 60's. They were the unequivocal musical force of that decade and changed the face of music forever. They were enlightenment in the form of ear candy..

    September 8, 2009 at 4:26 pm | Reply
  37. Joan Fulton

    Actually, this is little hype compared with all the hype about Michael Jackson, which just does not stop!!!!!!!!!!

    September 8, 2009 at 4:53 pm | Reply
  38. Robert

    If The Beatles hadn't existed, and a Beatles-like band emerged these days, they'll achieve moderate success, at best. It was not their music or songs, which are great and I still love to hear them, they were the FIRST to do what they did, rock the world with a new kind of music, songs, behaviour, clothing, and so. The first and the ones for long.
    That's the reason why we still feel as if they had never gone.

    September 8, 2009 at 5:05 pm | Reply
  39. Margarita Diaz-Krapfl

    Since I was a teenager I heard of the beatles. I'm from Central America and an uncle of mine brought me a 'wig' being sold as the beatle wigs, I was soooo excited!
    I children still with us (19,18&14) learned about the beatles since a w hile ago while many of all of their classmates never heard of them ;'-(
    I still get all shook up every time I hear/see them in video or listen to records of them.
    I still have a couple 33 1/2 rpm with me.
    Considering that they were few famous bands in the 60's, the Beatles were the best!!!
    They will be remember for as long as there's life on this Earth.

    September 8, 2009 at 5:20 pm | Reply
  40. Gebbeth

    Look the basic premise of this article is meant to cause controversy, and I'm taking the bait, so here's my two cents.

    I was born the year the Beatles officially called it quits, so to say I'm a Baby Boomer or a Beatlemania nostalgic is not accurate. But I'd like to think I know good music when I hear it. Fact is, the Beatles were the first rock band to be able to distill the social change around them into 2-3 minutes of singable pop. Don't think that is not a significant accomplishment. Very few musical acts, rock or otherwise can do that. Look, I'm a huge, huge Bob Dylan fan, but I wouldn't exactly call him mainstream. The Beatles stuck that balance.

    That's probably why they are still relevant. For those who say today's music is the same....well name one band that has that same musical/social interface? Name one. It's just not the same.

    Most amazingly, the Beatles lasted 10 years at the most? And yet they went from "She Loves You" to "Come Together" in that span? What band grew up so fast and progressed so thoroughly.

    Those naysayers, do me one favor. Listen to "Meet the Beatles" and then switch over to "Revolver" than to "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Heartsclub Band"...listen to "Day in the Life". That happened in the space of, what, 4 years?!?! Listen to music literally go from bubble gum pop to serious artistic endeavor in the same vein as the classical artists, the early soul, blues and jazz artists.

    Guys, give the Beatles their due. They were truly musical geniuses. You wouldn't say "stop listening to Robert Johnson, Mozart, or Miles Davis" would you?

    September 8, 2009 at 5:24 pm | Reply
  41. Tony Maclaren

    Right, there is excessive hype, but neverthless the Beatles were real and very human people, perceptive and humorous, making great music that endures almost agelessly as strong as ever. Compare that with Michael Jackson – great dancer, squeeky voice, monotonous disco music, whacky appearance, and finally just really one long media event that will slowly but surely disappear into a hazy oblivion.

    September 8, 2009 at 5:40 pm | Reply
  42. Tony

    The Beatles should have had patented their concept, (moptop, shoes, attire, etc...) a lot of people have gotten away with lots of money making a career mimicking them.

    September 8, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Reply
  43. zena lazarus

    I'm far more bored with the Jon and Kate hype, Who cares????
    Certainly I don't.

    September 8, 2009 at 5:46 pm | Reply
  44. Gabriela

    Come on!! Rock dinosaurs ??
    I think the Beatles are the greatest band ever and I was born in 1967.. What else can I tell you guys ?

    September 8, 2009 at 6:01 pm | Reply
  45. CJK

    "Should acts from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s simply bow out gracefully and make way for new talent?"

    Gee, whiz, they should make way no more than Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Beethoven.

    Beatles = quality, breakthrough lyrics and music , mass appeal, all that is eternal and genuine, tested and found truer as time goes by...

    September 8, 2009 at 6:31 pm | Reply
  46. CharlieG

    Today, music has to do more with marketing than talent.
    Bands from the 60s 70s and 80s really did play.
    New artists are talented, yes, but it's a different world.
    200 years from now we'll still listen to The Beatles,
    like we listen to Mozart right now.

    September 8, 2009 at 6:47 pm | Reply
  47. Arnaud

    I'd certainly rather hear about the Beatles (and I'm not even a fan) than Lil' John or Lil' Kim who provide nothing to children and listeners of this culture but bling bling, fine hoe's, and fast cars. As a matter of fact, I wish they would ban that crap from the airwaves.

    September 8, 2009 at 7:28 pm | Reply
  48. RM

    I'd rather hear about the Beatles anyday than the over-kill of Michael Jackson. Enough is enough with him, music was good, the man wasn't. The beatles did quite well for the time.

    September 8, 2009 at 7:36 pm | Reply
  49. Sakasama

    I can't for the life of me see why anyone would WANT to remaster such stale and decrepit old tunes! Not only are they boring, but what those people were singing about is just untrue and meaningless in today's popular culture. Has-Beens, the lot of them; looking to squeeze the last trickle of profit out of long faded and forgotten (deservedly so) musical careers!

    September 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm | Reply
  50. Daniel

    First of all, what "new talent" is it that we're talking about here? Sadly, although there are exceptions, original, insightful, innovative, high quality music is not exactly the hallmark of my generation.

    There is a reason why artists such as the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, the Clash and many others are still relevant today, many years after their hay day, and it isn't exactly that fans are "gullible"...

    September 8, 2009 at 7:47 pm | Reply
  51. george m

    greed record contrac owners and band s going after ever generation ,
    VAMPIRES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    September 8, 2009 at 7:48 pm | Reply
  52. carlos montes

    It´s all business, lets face it. It´s also a matter of taste. i never could stand Elvis, and he is a similar case. Best band? the berlin, or vienna or New York symphonies.

    September 8, 2009 at 8:08 pm | Reply
  53. Sam

    Well, new music today is mostly awful – remixes of old music and nothing innovative – so it seems only fitting that theres a resurgence of actual tented musicians and good music – as opposed to the formulaic, uninspired, disposable crap that is being pumped out by the corporates today.
    I dont include radioead, coldplay, muse etc in that but no new music holds a candle to the beatles. which is a real shame and i hope it changes...

    September 8, 2009 at 8:15 pm | Reply
  54. Miguel V

    Can someone, some one whos is a fan and not a bandwagon fan, explain to me why the beatles are a "big deal" . I for one am sick and tired of hearing of the beatles and nothing from them. Who plays them on the radio? not mainstream stations. Tired ass music that hippies still cling on for nostalgia. Keep your music and stop bothering us with this beatle nonsense. Oh my go!!!! Beatles rock band is out!!!! get a life. All these little music yuppies praise the beatles because they think its the right thing to say.

    September 8, 2009 at 8:50 pm | Reply
  55. gradeAcynic

    Meh... Sure the Beatles where progressive for thier time, but so was the medical procedure know as "leaching". The Beatles helped fuel the peace and love movement of the 60s and 70s. A movement that ultimatly failed due to the lack of true insperation. A movement that spawned a generation of crybabies and pacifists. A movement that showed the military-indutrial complex that it can do almost anything it wanted with only dirty, smelly hippies with placard chanting slogans as a consquence. The Greatest Generation saved the world from tyranny.... thier childern gave it right back. And now, we the childern of the that failed movement are still reaping what our parents sowed... And its all the Beatles fault. I 'effing hate the Beatles.

    September 8, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Reply
  56. Miguel V

    Hey.......Lets make a big deal about Frank Sinatra and see if we can make money off that too. This is a ploy to squeeze out money from the consumers pockets. Thats all. They figure that because the younger generation is too broke in this economy to shell out money so they purposely go after the baby boomers and their saving and sometimes deep enough pockets. Just good ole' american marketing at its best, go after the ones with the spare cash.

    September 8, 2009 at 9:02 pm | Reply
  57. Navi Reyd

    They wrote some beautiful songs. That's about all. But they foolishly thought they were more popular than God.

    September 8, 2009 at 9:03 pm | Reply
  58. JP

    The public spends their money on what it likes. If newer acts could write songs as well as the Beatles did, the public would spend its money on those acts. Who knows why, but since the early 90's, melody and solid song craft has nearly disappeared. For those of us who appreciate a well-written song, as opposed to slick production or posturing, what alternative is there besides the past masters?

    September 8, 2009 at 9:14 pm | Reply
  59. Paulo Tôrre

    I would ask the writer to go back a little further then the 60's to find such music pieces as timeless as some of which were created in the 60's, 70's and 80's (Blue Danube by Strauss or 9th Symphony by Beethoven, rings a bell?). For me I feel very fortunate to have been a teenager in the 80's and be able to enjoy all the music that surround us in those days, and that surprisingly todays teens still enjoy. Whose to blame if the music of today can't beat the "dinossaurs", as you call it? I keep listening anyway.

    September 8, 2009 at 9:16 pm | Reply
  60. grinningidiot

    This is one of those increasingly frequent situations where the media seems to be insisting that I care about something that I really, really don't.

    September 8, 2009 at 9:22 pm | Reply
  61. Kenny

    Why do we have to argue about this? 'Good' music is just the stuff you enjoy – not the stuff that is somehow intellectually or artistically 'superior'. (What good is any music if you can't enjoy it!?!?!)

    September 8, 2009 at 9:33 pm | Reply
  62. Javier Mercado

    I grew up listening and buying vinyl albums by such groups as the Beatles, the Doors, Jimi Hendrix Experience, Cream, Chicago, Led Zeppelin, the Who and Santana as well as other groups. I tried to continue my library with today's rock music; but let's face the facts – they are just not good enough as our groups of yesteryear. Too many are busy making deals with the devil and playing that crap music. And none of these can hold up a guitar to such giants as Jim Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Pete Townshend or Carlos Santana. No one today can write and sing (croon) lyrics like Jim Morrison of the Doors (My all-time personal favorite rock group). None of the singers can match the intensity of Robert Plant or Roger Daltry. So, to add it all up – today's music is too morbid, not as good and just doesn't add up. We'll stick with the "Dinosours Rock" anytime. When should they retire as your article states? That's easy, when today's groups produce quality music. If that's the case, then I think classic rock will still be around for a long-long time.

    September 8, 2009 at 10:12 pm | Reply
  63. Joey2064

    What is their to remaster. These recordings were made decades ago, no amount or remastering is going to make old poop sound fresh and new!

    September 8, 2009 at 10:19 pm | Reply
  64. craig

    Unlike a lot of the "New Talent" the Beatles could actually play musical instruments. Most of the music released to day is rehashed and re-sampled old music anyways so why not go straight to the source. Beatles music is still getting a fair bit of airplay 40 years on while most of the stuff that comes out today will not be heard of again 18 months after its release date.

    September 8, 2009 at 11:06 pm | Reply
  65. Laoke

    To all the negative posters: If John and George were still alive today and joined up with Paul and Ringo and decided to just give ONE concert, it'd be the biggest event ever. Even if marketing consisted of just ONE ad, it would spread all over the world before you could say "the Beatles suck".

    Liking the Beatles is not because one is old or is living in the past. It's about appreciating great music and great lyrics. Tell me, what ditties of your kind of music do you whistle or hum? I guess none because they melody is practically non-existent.

    People love the Beatles because of their personalities and their music. Great music is timeless. Who are your favorites...today? That's the problem of today's music: here today, gone tomorrow. There's no lasting power. If you can't dance to it, it's no good, right? Beatles' music, you can sit and enjoy. And guess what? No matter how often you listen, you just don't get tired of it. So it's not about companies pushing us to buy new products, it's about staying power. People just can't get enough of the Beatles. Too many good memories and all that.

    So, to all those saying that us Beatles lovers are living in the past, what will you be listening to in 20 or 30 years? What "great" music will you be talking about?

    September 8, 2009 at 11:07 pm | Reply
  66. Cecilia

    "Love" album was #1 sales in Amazon during few weeks in 2006 (36 years after their breakup)
    "Remastered boxes" both Stereo an Mono... All sold out in Amazon since 2 or 3 weeks ago (2009) (39 years after their breakup)
    These are the facts and numbers... i don´t think you need any more comments

    September 8, 2009 at 11:25 pm | Reply
  67. Reggie Benhouse

    Please, please me. Name one band, just one, that was better than the Beatles.

    It is a ridiculous survey. They changed music in America and possibly the world at a time when the sound was stagnant. They changed the way people dressed and wore their hair. They wrote some of the best lyrical ballads of our time.

    The Beatles never said they were more popular than God. Get your facts straight. John Lennon, taken out of context, said they the hype they were getting was making them out to be more popular than Jesus.

    The Beatles are far more popular than U2. If the Beatles were able (impossible) to ever play in concert again, the ticket sales would outpace any concert ever held, ever!!

    September 8, 2009 at 11:58 pm | Reply
  68. Mike James

    The hype is a bit annoying but, apart from very hyped reality show singers, you have to ask what is around today to challenge these acts from the heady days of the 60s. It's not as if there is any musical act today that really stands out and raises the pulse rate. If a new generation or nostalgic oldies want to buy Beatles, then why not keep promoting them? Today's scene is a bit of a vacuum.

    September 9, 2009 at 12:07 am | Reply
  69. Marc

    I don't know why are you comparing MJ with the Beatles.

    The article is all about the best ROCK BAND ever. MJ was not even a BAND. ;))
    Anyway, I don't know much about the Beatles since I don't listen to their music that much, and that I only know that they are a rock band and "bigger than Jesus" according to John Lennon. lol

    September 9, 2009 at 12:43 am | Reply
  70. Empathy

    I do hope the new Beatles Remastered CD as good as their LP. I don't know why but my Beatles LP always sounded better than CD. BTW today's music sucks big time. I doubt people would still buy todays hits CDs 10 years from now.

    .

    September 9, 2009 at 1:10 am | Reply
  71. pete

    Yes, I am sick of this Beatles media spin.
    Let them rest in peace, they belong to another era, another age.

    Younger people today do not, indeed cannot feel what were those days. Is the current music scape so barren that people need to reanimate bands their grandpas danced to?

    September 9, 2009 at 1:28 am | Reply
  72. Nilson

    So what ? The Beatles still resonate in the hearts and minds of millions of people. From my perspective, I believe that waiting anxiously to buy back catalogues looks like a kind of revival of those good years ago, when most of us dreamed about their next albums. We are older today, but music will remain within us until the death. I say this based on what I observed on my father, who, before dying of Alz, still tried to sing the Lecuona and Cole Porter songs of his youth ... even not knowing the lyrics.

    September 9, 2009 at 2:00 am | Reply
  73. tumalaca

    it is a free market, so everyone has the choice to buy or to ignore it... there is always a way for new talent, it is up to the new talent to see how good it can be to become another dinosaur... it is not like telling someone "you're too old to continue working, maybe you should quit and let a new employee come in"...

    which other artist can write and play music (a melody that you can hum) and leave us timeless messages such as "and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"? isn't it more comfortable to read news headlines about music/technology, games that everyone can enjoy, etc., rather than reading about some singer going to jail for beating his partner...?

    September 9, 2009 at 6:04 am | Reply
  74. Bill

    Well, Ms. Becky Anderson, since you asked, I'll ask you; you've had your success, should you now bow out gracefully and allow newer talent to replace you? Of course not. The reason that the old timers are still successful is because they're still GOOD. They're still relevant. They can still fill theaters. Why would anyone want to take that away. If the new talent isn't good enough to do the same, then maybe they should do something else for a living. Do you think your bosses over at Time Warner would keep you on the air if you couldn't compete with the established talent? That goes for anybody in any walk of life.

    Anyway, my 9 year old sons 2 favorite songs are 1) On the Turning Away (Live) by Pink Floyd and 2) Freebird (studio edition) by Lynard Skynard. The former being his favorite since he was 5 years old. But I guess he shouldn't like them or buy their music because we have to make way for the New Talent. Is that what you're asking us to do?

    Too many dang Socialists on this site.

    September 9, 2009 at 7:59 am | Reply
  75. ANIL MATHEW

    Rock dinosaurs will become extinct when evolution produces musicians who are actually more talented than them. But that's not going to happen anytime in the near future considering the current species' absolute dependence on electronics.

    September 11, 2009 at 5:39 am | Reply
  76. Dottie Franchette

    Thanks for providing such information. nvofgfjv

    January 29, 2011 at 4:12 am | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.