Log In
Register
8.12pm
24 July 2016
Offline
This is something I wonder about 2nd generation fans, do you wish you were alive when The Beatles were big or do you prefer to be a 2nd gen fan. Personally, I was born in 1967, so although I am technically a 1st gen fan because I did like The Beatles when I was like 2, I still consider myself a 2nd gen fan because I was too young to really get into it at the time. Personally, I prefer the 70’s over the 60’s so I like my age as it is (as much as I love bands like The Beatles and The Beach Boys , I prefer and feel like I grew up with bands such as AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, and Queen), but some of you might have some differing opinions, especially if you were born after about 1990.
Maybe you should try posting more.
8.21pm
1 November 2013
Offline
No
Being a first gen fan would also mean growing up in the 50/60’s.
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Oudis, William Shears Campbell, Necko, lennonflower
8.23pm
Moderators
15 February 2015
Offline I have a keen interest in the times, and occasionally wish I were there for the concerts and things; but there are always threads like these for when I feel like that, and the rest of the time I’m quite happy to inhabit the 21st century.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
Oudis([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site! 
8.28pm
24 July 2016
Offline Starr Shine? said
NoBeing a first gen fan would also mean growing up in the 50/60’s.
@Starr Shine?
You could’ve been one of those 1st gen fans born in 1962 who grew up in the 60’s/70’s like Axl Rose or Dave from beatlesebooks.com. Back then, there was great new music coming out by several bands (Pink Floyd, Queen, AC/DC, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, Elton John, the list goes on) and everything was cheaper.
Maybe you should try posting more.
8.31pm
1 November 2013
Offline Ya but music wasn’t the only thing going on at the time.
8.33pm
24 July 2016
Offline Starr Shine? said
Ya but music wasn’t the only thing going on at the time.
Trust me, if you were 5 in 1967, you weren’t getting drafted into Vietnam.
Maybe you should try posting more.
8.53pm
1 November 2013
Offline Draft ain’t the problem though interesting that you think it would be.
9.39pm
24 July 2016
Offline I the draft ain’t your problem, what would be your problem with living in the 60’s because the only other serious problem I can think of is the fact that people that were of different color, sexuality, and/or gender than the white straight male were treated inferiorly (in all honesty, the straight white non-disabled male who is 16-40 years old has, is, and most likely will always be treated the best (not trying to sound sexist, but an example would be that if a man and a woman of equal experience apply to the same job, the man is most likely getting it)), although I can understand if it’s the lack of a certain thing you really like that wasn’t available at the time (video games, Star Wars, heavy metal, the internet, etc.). It’s not like the 30’s where there was mass poverty or the 40’s where everybody was being forced to ration for the US military.
Maybe you should try posting more.
11.40pm
18 April 2013
Offline I read a book that says second gen starts with those born in 62, which makes sense because those people wouldn’t even be in kindergarten by the time The Beatles stopped touring.
I don’t want to be a baby boomer.
"If you're ever in the shit, grab my tit.” —Paul McCartney
11.47pm
31 July 2014
Offline Starr Shine? said
NoBeing a first gen fan would also mean growing up in the 50/60’s.
I couldn’t have been born at a better time, music wise. One of my 1st “45’s” was Jailhouse Rock when I was 7. I experienced the rise of Rock N Roll, the Combination of Blues N Gospel (Soul Music), Motown, Surf Music, the resurgence of Folk Music (and all the artists that entailed), the Phillie Sound, Girl Groups, the British Invasion, Acoustic (folk) Rock, Poetic Rock, Jazz/Rock Fusion, World Music, Blues Rock, Prog Rock, & the Singer-Songwriter explosion. (All of this in a brief 20 yr period.) I watched each of these grow from one or two songs on the radio into a massive world-wide musical Revolution . Music for teens/youth really didn’t exist before the ’50’s. All at once it was our music vs their music. I watched it coming from a distance and bathed in it when the wave broke.
So yeah, The Beatles hit when I hit puberty. They gave me all the sounds & words I needed exactly when I needed them. And their final opus came just as I was leaving my teens. I know it’s cliche’d to say, but you had to be there to feel the visceral reaction to their being in the world and the anticipation felt when you heard the new album was coming out “next week” and you went to the record store every single day to ask if it was there yet. Whew, what were they going to sound like THIS time!? Where were they going to take my mind & spirit?
True, music wasn’t the only “thing” going on at the time, but if you look at it in a parallel line, the music showed us what was going on at the time. What is today’s music showing us? Las Vegas knock offs flouncing around to pre-packaged corporate pop and rap stars in Bentleys telling me it’s rough in the ‘hood. Don’t think, just buy our “product”.
Oh well…I’ve got no complaints. Music is eternal & internal. Play on.
Love & Peace,
A 1st Genner
The following people thank SaxonMothersSon for this post:
georgiewood, The Hippie Chick, HMBeatlesfan, lennonflower, WeepingAtlasCedarsMatches...Candles...Matches...Candles
1.46am
15 May 2014
Offline Just a humble opinion based on my personality… Knowing myself, had I been let’s say fifteen in 1964, I wouldn’t have liked The Beatles. Their image was… too clean, and it was everywhere. But who knows, their music was so good. My guess is that I would have been into more radical images like The Stones or The Animals (although their music was inferior). In 1967 I would have been a fan of The Doors. The thing is that when I listened to The Beatles for the first time, in 1980, the Beatlemania was history, The Beatles themselves were history, and I fell for their music, not their image –that’s something I like.
The following people thank Oudis for this post:
Into the Sky with Diamonds“Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit” (“Perhaps one day it will be a pleasure to look back on even this”; Virgil, The Aeneid, Book 1, line 203, where Aeneas says this to his men after the shipwreck that put them on the shores of Africa)
2.09am
11 November 2010
Offline No, because then there’s a chance that I would have missed out on/wouldn’t be able to appreciate the great music made 1970-present. Plus, you know, as AD40 says, there was more going on in the 60’s than music.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
6.47am
17 January 2016
Offline Born in 1965. I feel like I was born at just the right time. Because I have all that music already there, already instilled in me from the beginning. I don’t think I missed a thing not “being there” as it were. Yes there was turbulence in the 60s. There’s stuff in every decade though, it’s just all different, yet all the same if you will. I’m happy to be right where I am and having had the band with me my whole life. 
“She wasn't doing a thing that I could see, except standing there leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.” - J.D. Salinger
6.57am
20 August 2016
Offline I was born in ’65, so I have a very vague recollection hearing about the breakup as my first orientation to the group. That said, I didn’t really appreciate their music until around 1978, listening to my pal’s 18-year old brother playing his Beatles albums. Would I have wanted to be discovering The Beatles at age 13 in 1964? Although that would have put me at 18 when Woodstock happened, other ‘events’ going on at the time for males of that age make me content to be born when I was. Also, I like the albums from “Help !” on much better, so I likely might not have been a fan in ’64.
The following people thank Paulrus for this post:
The Hippie Chick7.09am
22 September 2014
Offline Oudis said
Just a humble opinion based on my personality… Knowing myself, had I been let’s say fifteen in 1964, I wouldn’t have liked The Beatles. Their image was… too clean, and it was everywhere. But who knows, their music was so good. My guess is that I would have been into more radical images like The Stones or The Animals (although their music was inferior). In 1967 I would have been a fan of The Doors. The thing is that when I listened to The Beatles for the first time, in 1980, the Beatlemania was history, The Beatles themselves were history, and I fell for their music, not their image –that’s something I like.
You may think that now, but at the time it was happening, you would have been a Beatles fan because of their music. Yes, they were a little cleaner and a little more mainstream than some of the groups they inspired, but they still could be cutting edge, and they always had the charismatic universal appeal that won them millions of avid fans. The cooler choices of music became the ones you named, and the real cool choices included Hendrix and Led Zeppelin, but when the Beatles released anything new, it was always an event. You can always be a fan of more than one group, you know, and your enthusiasm could wax and wane, but you would have liked the Beatles.
The following people thank georgiewood for this post:
OudisI say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did'.
Kurt Vonnegut, Timequake, 1997
8.34am
24 July 2016
Offline Necko said
No, because then there’s a chance that I would have missed out on/wouldn’t be able to appreciate the great music made 1970-present. Plus, you know, as AD40 says, there was more going on in the 60’s than music.
That’s not entirely true. Sure, you may have missed out on stuff like Green Day and Nirvana but you still could’ve been into 70’s/80’s music. My friend/former boss was born in 1953, a perfect age to be a 1st gen fan, and he still likes stuff such as AC/DC, Queen, and Elton John almost as much as he likes stuff such as The Beach Boys and The Beatles. The only person I can think of who is a 1st gen fan but hates 99% of music released since 1970 is my father, and he was born in 1939, so he is one of the older 1st gen fans.
The following people thank HMBeatlesfan for this post:
Into the Sky with DiamondsMaybe you should try posting more.
8.47am
24 July 2016
Offline Expert Textpert said
I read a book that says second gen starts with those born in 62, which makes sense because those people wouldn’t even be in kindergarten by the time The Beatles stopped touring.I don’t want to be a baby boomer.
What book is that because I wonder how accurate it is and why it starts 2nd gen at 1962 because that’s an odd cutoff date. I understand why they would start 2nd gen at 1963, as The Beatles released their first canon single, Love Me Do , in 1962. I personally start 2nd gen at 1965 because I’m an American citizen and The Beatles hit it big here in 1964.
Maybe you should try posting more.
8.51am
24 July 2016
Offline Oudis said
Just a humble opinion based on my personality… Knowing myself, had I been let’s say fifteen in 1964, I wouldn’t have liked The Beatles. Their image was… too clean, and it was everywhere. But who knows, their music was so good. My guess is that I would have been into more radical images like The Stones or The Animals (although their music was inferior). In 1967 I would have been a fan of The Doors. The thing is that when I listened to The Beatles for the first time, in 1980, the Beatlemania was history, The Beatles themselves were history, and I fell for their music, not their image –that’s something I like.
So I’m guessing you’d also have no interest in The Beach Boys and The Monkees if you were alive at the time. Also, it’s interesting how John’s death gave us so many 2nd gen fans.
The following people thank HMBeatlesfan for this post:
OudisMaybe you should try posting more.
9.29am
1 November 2013
Offline HMBeatlesfan said
What book is that because I wonder how accurate it is and why it starts 2nd gen at 1962 because that’s an odd cutoff date. I understand why they would start 2nd gen at 1963, as The Beatles released their first canon single, Love Me Do , in 1962. I personally start 2nd gen at 1965 because I’m an American citizen and The Beatles hit it big here in 1964.
I guess 8 is a good age for music memory.
