(May 15, 2019 at 6:34 pm)Shell B Wrote: A lot of the time that's true, unless the intended age of the consumer is less than 18. That demographic feeds on shit, with the exception of Beatlemania.

What about Jimmy Hendrix?

I'm pretty sure his demographic was not just teens when he came out. The Beatles were pretty much the Jonas Brothers when they first came out.

(May 15, 2019 at 6:48 pm)Shell B Wrote: I'm pretty sure his demographic was not just teens when he came out. The Beatles were pretty much the Jonas Brothers when they first came out.

A good portion of them were. In fact his popularity among young white youths actually helped push Elvis due to fears youths were idolizing a black singer .

Sorry, what? Elvis was the 50s. Hendrix was the 70s.

(May 15, 2019 at 7:12 pm)Shell B Wrote: Sorry, what? Elvis was the 50s. Hendrix was the 70s.

Elvis started in the 53's but hit his peak was  during the 60s first in 1961 then again 1966 to 69 and Hendrix was dead in 1970 at the age of 27 after a brilliant but brief career at the top .

---

And now this 

That still doesn't explain how Jimi could have led to Elvis. I took a course in the history of Rock 'n Roll, and I distinctly remember Elvis coming before Jimi.

Elvis was born seven years before Jimi. Elvis' first recording was in 1954 when Jimi was 12. I'm gonna go with Elvis was first.

Elvis started out then did his military service and had his movie career and then moved back to music being his primary thing. There was some overlap when both were performing during Jimi's distressingly short run.

(May 15, 2019 at 5:47 pm)Amarok Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 5:33 pm)EgoDeath Wrote: Yes, a vast majority of shows on TV and movies released today ARE garbage. That is somehow funny to you? Hm, interesting.

Nope and I find that opinion funny

Lol... uh okay? Really digging in those heels to get the last word in huh? You can have it, champ.

(May 15, 2019 at 6:12 pm)Shell B Wrote: Something being popular or made for the masses doesn't automatically make it bad. Snobbery.

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the part where I said mass appeal = bad. Please show me where I said that? I'll wait.

(May 15, 2019 at 9:49 pm)EgoDeath Wrote:

(May 15, 2019 at 5:47 pm)Amarok Wrote: Nope and I find that opinion funny

Lol... uh okay? Really digging in those heels to get the last word in huh? You can have it, champ.

(May 15, 2019 at 6:12 pm)Shell B Wrote: Something being popular or made for the masses doesn't automatically make it bad. Snobbery.

Oh, I'm sorry. I missed the part where I said mass appeal = bad. Please show me where I said that? I'll wait.

Simply answering your question is not "trying to get the last word "

---

(May 15, 2019 at 9:29 pm)Shell B Wrote: That still doesn't explain how Jimi could have led to Elvis. I took a course in the history of Rock 'n Roll, and I distinctly remember Elvis coming before Jimi.

I didn't say he did I said he pushed Elvis . Elvis was already there but his peak or push in 66 to 69 was a back lash against Hendrix for the reason I stated .

---

(May 15, 2019 at 9:48 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: Elvis was born seven years before Jimi.  Elvis' first recording was in 1954 when Jimi was 12.  I'm gonna go with Elvis was first.

Elvis started out then did his military service and had his movie career and then moved back to music being his primary thing.  There was some overlap when both were performing during Jimi's distressingly short run.

I never said Jimmy came first . I said he pushed Elvis or at least the 66 to 69 peak he had as it was a backlash against Hendrix popularity .

I really don't know how you think they were in competition. Their musical styles were not the same...not even close.

Elvis wasn't exactly the Woodstock type.