Are the Beatles the reason why modern music exists

Mmakshak, Audiofeil picks up the story 50 years into it but I mostly agree. Now, about the playoffs. Between you and me I see 9-7 and a wild card slot.

I agree with Ben and Macrojack.

Naturally corporate forces dictate everything that flows in the mainstream. Although, the people are at least as much to blame as the big wigs at the record/broadcast companies for letting it happen.

There is a lot of good music out there that doesn't get played publicly often. I've found that lately a lot of it seems to occassionally be squeaking into some air time though, which is good news.

Not certain that I could give any credence at all to Macrojack's assumption regarding the corporate takeover of pop music SINCE Regan. My guess is that there have always been types that scout for music that will make the kids happy, and his employer a ton of money. Ted Hughes wrote about this very idea in his poem, "Dolor." long before the Fab 4 were even a twinkle in their dads' eyes.

Audiofeil's take on this seems more like it to me. In the grander scheme of things, it seems to me as if it's the academicians who study this stuff, determine what's art, pronounce it thusly, $h1t-can the rest, and assign future students to investigate whatever it is that survives a few generations to ponder what impact it had. Likewise, students of literature still read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, but I don't know if Jonathan Livingston Seagul will make it an other year or so; last I heard, the academic types are still having their students study Baroque composers, but there's little or no mention of Smokey Robinson & the Miracles in their lecture notes.

Modern music exists because that's what it is. Maybe a hundred years from now somebody might be recording Aarvo Part (sp?), George Lloyd or Rodrigo, but my guess is that the Beatles may well be just a footnote in some obscure textbook.

Aldavis, I have read and appreciate your response.