In my opinion the Beatles will survive this effect - at least what they made from 1965 on. Love the early stuff myself, but it's more a meme representing the '60s where the later stuff is pop as timeless art.
Not so sanguine about anyone else from the era. The Stones? Too tied to rock and blues, both of which are out of favour now. The Who? Too wild and improvisational - that's all out of vogue too. Hendrix? Too tied to the electric guitar, and most of his stuff's too abrasive and inaccessible for most listeners. Dylan? Extremely culturally important and innovative, but may well be remembered for historic rather than musical reasons ('Did you know there was a guy who wrote complex lyrics in the era *before* rap?').
These guys are all still respected, but they're not *worshipped* the way they used to be. It's always fascinating to me to read old articles and see just how venerated Dylan was by pretty much all the music writers of the day - they really thought each pronouncement came from a higher place and each new release signalled where the culture was going to go next. And he really was that influential at the time. But I'd argue that since his heyday his influence has been mostly indirect - he inspired people who inspire people.
It's a shame, because personally I love him just as much as all those Boomer writers of old.
As an Old Movie Weirdo, this makes me sad. I'm glad there are a few of us around to at least keep enjoying the old stars amongst ourselves.
I'm reminded of Robert Frost's "Provide, Provide" ("The witch that came (the withered hag)/ To wash the steps with pail and rag,/ Was once the beauty Abishag,/ The picture pride of Hollywood"). First time I read this as a kid, I thought "No way!" Now I believe it.
A few years ago I had the melancholy duty of helping somebody sell off her deceased mother's doll collection at an estate sale. There were Shirley Temple dolls from the 1940s through to a last gasp series in the late 80s or even early 90s, which were clearly aimed at adult collectors. I remember thinking that the old lady who had died was one of her final fans and I was watching the disintegration of the cultural memory of Shirley Temple in real time. I advertised the sale in all the big cities of Texas; we didn't sell any.
Google's ngram tool says it is "a graph showing how those phrases have occurred in a corpus of books". I just worry that this tool over-represents the popularity of artists that are more likely to have appeared in books, as opposed to coming up in conversation, videos, social media, newspapers, stories on tv, etc.
I don't mean to discount the the point of the article which intuitively seems right. I just worry that the relative measurements between artists are going to be skewed by little things such as a lot of people write about the Beatles in books but the same may not be true for other artists, especially given how dominant other forms of media are.
Greta Garbo has a particularly memorable name (she was name-checked in Madonna's "Vogue"), which may account for some share of her persistence. Cf. Joe DiMaggio (name-checked by Simon & Garfunkel and Peanuts).
This has nothing to do with the Bob Hope airport being renamed, but I think part of the problem of celebrities fading from memory is how younger people think about the past. Example: when I was 18-20 years old, which would have been 1983-85, I was heavily into modern bands like The Police and The Cars, but I also knew (and appreciated) The Andrews Sisters and Glenn Miiler and rock stars of the 50s. I don't think the 18-20 year-olds (or 30 year-olds for that matter) of today have that same interest in things that went before them. They might go as far back as Friends, the 90s, but that's only because they seem to be on 24 hours a day on 50 channels.
I suspect that the current crop of actors and musicians will have much shorter longevity than those of the 20th century and it has to do with how media is consumed these days. When I was kid back in the 1970s, one of my favourite things to do was to watch the double movie matinee on TV on Saturday afternoons. You didn't get to choose what you watched, you just got whatever was programmed. Hence I got to see a lot of films from the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Sometimes the movies would be frivolous ones, like "Meet me in St Louis" but I also remember watching The Third Man, Citizen Kane and Gaslight. It was a really broad film history lesson. I knew well the work of Louis Armstrong, Mario Lanza and Gene Krupa. Hope and Crosby, Lewis and Martin, Spencer Tracy (man was he hot), Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford and so on, were all stars we knew, even though they weren't in the current movies of the day. Now, kids only get to watch films that are considered for kids, they receive video content from streaming platforms that tell them what they can choose from. I can't imagine an 8 year old clicking to watch Citizen Kane, but it was on TV on a Saturday arvo and I was riveted.
It's curious that we haven't seen any big publishing deals with Hipgnosis recently (great name, BTW). I think Springsteen was the last one that got my attention. Maybe these Hip dudes (I would love to see their record collections when they were twelve) have realized that most of these songs will be difficult to repurpose. How would -you- monetize "Maggie's Farm?"
Just curious, what do you think the half life of Frank Sinatra will be? The romantic in me hopes that he will last longer than most performers because I sense that most fans now will discover him later in life (which is my case).
What about Marilyn Monroe? She’s as famous as ever (incl. recent sensationalistic movies), and yet she never made it into the rarified art status like Louis Armstrong. Probably 99% of millennials could pick her out of a lineup. I guess there are always exceptions to the rule.
Elvis actually grew until about 2010, as did the Beatles. Both are trending down from a high, Elvis faster than the Beatles. It’s not clear yet if this will continue for 20 more years. I think, as Ted does, that Elvis will be remembered as a name, the Beatles as artists. In any cast I believe the Beatles’ music will be played in 2060.
My father was 94 when he died in 2019. But near the time of his death, he didn't ask to listen to Tommy Dorsey or Bing Crosby. He wanted to hear Willie Nelson. Dad certainly remembered the names of 1940s musicians, but ONLY as names, not as something he wanted to hear any more.
Random thought: maybe Bing Crosby is lingering a bit because of White Christmas. It gets lots of play annually, and his distinctive tone could lead even kids to wonder, "who is that?"
In my opinion the Beatles will survive this effect - at least what they made from 1965 on. Love the early stuff myself, but it's more a meme representing the '60s where the later stuff is pop as timeless art.
Not so sanguine about anyone else from the era. The Stones? Too tied to rock and blues, both of which are out of favour now. The Who? Too wild and improvisational - that's all out of vogue too. Hendrix? Too tied to the electric guitar, and most of his stuff's too abrasive and inaccessible for most listeners. Dylan? Extremely culturally important and innovative, but may well be remembered for historic rather than musical reasons ('Did you know there was a guy who wrote complex lyrics in the era *before* rap?').
These guys are all still respected, but they're not *worshipped* the way they used to be. It's always fascinating to me to read old articles and see just how venerated Dylan was by pretty much all the music writers of the day - they really thought each pronouncement came from a higher place and each new release signalled where the culture was going to go next. And he really was that influential at the time. But I'd argue that since his heyday his influence has been mostly indirect - he inspired people who inspire people.
It's a shame, because personally I love him just as much as all those Boomer writers of old.
As an Old Movie Weirdo, this makes me sad. I'm glad there are a few of us around to at least keep enjoying the old stars amongst ourselves.
I'm reminded of Robert Frost's "Provide, Provide" ("The witch that came (the withered hag)/ To wash the steps with pail and rag,/ Was once the beauty Abishag,/ The picture pride of Hollywood"). First time I read this as a kid, I thought "No way!" Now I believe it.
A few years ago I had the melancholy duty of helping somebody sell off her deceased mother's doll collection at an estate sale. There were Shirley Temple dolls from the 1940s through to a last gasp series in the late 80s or even early 90s, which were clearly aimed at adult collectors. I remember thinking that the old lady who had died was one of her final fans and I was watching the disintegration of the cultural memory of Shirley Temple in real time. I advertised the sale in all the big cities of Texas; we didn't sell any.
Bing Crosby seemed relevant to me and my friends when we were kids because of his Christmas duets with David Bowie. Instant credibility!
Ozymandias.....
Google's ngram tool says it is "a graph showing how those phrases have occurred in a corpus of books". I just worry that this tool over-represents the popularity of artists that are more likely to have appeared in books, as opposed to coming up in conversation, videos, social media, newspapers, stories on tv, etc.
I don't mean to discount the the point of the article which intuitively seems right. I just worry that the relative measurements between artists are going to be skewed by little things such as a lot of people write about the Beatles in books but the same may not be true for other artists, especially given how dominant other forms of media are.
For example, classical musicians fare pretty well over time: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Beatles%2CMozart%2CBeethoven%2CDebussy%2CLouis+Armstrong&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=0
Greta Garbo has a particularly memorable name (she was name-checked in Madonna's "Vogue"), which may account for some share of her persistence. Cf. Joe DiMaggio (name-checked by Simon & Garfunkel and Peanuts).
This has nothing to do with the Bob Hope airport being renamed, but I think part of the problem of celebrities fading from memory is how younger people think about the past. Example: when I was 18-20 years old, which would have been 1983-85, I was heavily into modern bands like The Police and The Cars, but I also knew (and appreciated) The Andrews Sisters and Glenn Miiler and rock stars of the 50s. I don't think the 18-20 year-olds (or 30 year-olds for that matter) of today have that same interest in things that went before them. They might go as far back as Friends, the 90s, but that's only because they seem to be on 24 hours a day on 50 channels.
Bob
https://www.bobsassone.com
There was a time when I said my name is “Wayne. Like John Wayne.” Now I say “Wayne. Like (rapper) Lil’ Wayne.”
I suspect that the current crop of actors and musicians will have much shorter longevity than those of the 20th century and it has to do with how media is consumed these days. When I was kid back in the 1970s, one of my favourite things to do was to watch the double movie matinee on TV on Saturday afternoons. You didn't get to choose what you watched, you just got whatever was programmed. Hence I got to see a lot of films from the 1930s, 40s and 50s. Sometimes the movies would be frivolous ones, like "Meet me in St Louis" but I also remember watching The Third Man, Citizen Kane and Gaslight. It was a really broad film history lesson. I knew well the work of Louis Armstrong, Mario Lanza and Gene Krupa. Hope and Crosby, Lewis and Martin, Spencer Tracy (man was he hot), Katherine Hepburn, Joan Crawford and so on, were all stars we knew, even though they weren't in the current movies of the day. Now, kids only get to watch films that are considered for kids, they receive video content from streaming platforms that tell them what they can choose from. I can't imagine an 8 year old clicking to watch Citizen Kane, but it was on TV on a Saturday arvo and I was riveted.
It's curious that we haven't seen any big publishing deals with Hipgnosis recently (great name, BTW). I think Springsteen was the last one that got my attention. Maybe these Hip dudes (I would love to see their record collections when they were twelve) have realized that most of these songs will be difficult to repurpose. How would -you- monetize "Maggie's Farm?"
Just curious, what do you think the half life of Frank Sinatra will be? The romantic in me hopes that he will last longer than most performers because I sense that most fans now will discover him later in life (which is my case).
What about Marilyn Monroe? She’s as famous as ever (incl. recent sensationalistic movies), and yet she never made it into the rarified art status like Louis Armstrong. Probably 99% of millennials could pick her out of a lineup. I guess there are always exceptions to the rule.
Bogart seems to have legs, too.
How much of our own great-grandparents do most of us know?
I tried the Beatles vs Elvis.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Beatles%2CElvis&year_start=1950&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
Elvis actually grew until about 2010, as did the Beatles. Both are trending down from a high, Elvis faster than the Beatles. It’s not clear yet if this will continue for 20 more years. I think, as Ted does, that Elvis will be remembered as a name, the Beatles as artists. In any cast I believe the Beatles’ music will be played in 2060.
My father was 94 when he died in 2019. But near the time of his death, he didn't ask to listen to Tommy Dorsey or Bing Crosby. He wanted to hear Willie Nelson. Dad certainly remembered the names of 1940s musicians, but ONLY as names, not as something he wanted to hear any more.
Random thought: maybe Bing Crosby is lingering a bit because of White Christmas. It gets lots of play annually, and his distinctive tone could lead even kids to wonder, "who is that?"