Dave Meltzer stuff

[Bob Morris]

Sure, some people may not know who the Beatles are, but they would absolutely be fewer in number than those who know who Bo Jackson is.

 

Or to put it another way: Ask high school kids today if they know who the Beatles are and if they know who Bo Jackson is, and you are more likely to find those who know the Beatles than those who know Jackson.

 

It's all a question of who has stood the test of time versus those who haven't done so.

 

Now, if John wants to argue more high school kids know who Wayne Gretzky is than who know who the Beatles are, be my guest.

[jdw]

I'm not saying the Beatles aren't known, or that they aren't known more than Bo. Of course they are.

 

Simply an example of time moving forward. There's the old joke of "Wow... Paul was in a band before Wings?" It was around when I was a kid. Sure, a bad joke even then. But...

 

We shouldn't underestimate the ability of things we think are Big to fade into the back ground. Outkast?

 

John

[El-P]

Pardon me but.... who is Bo Jackson ?

[Phil Schneider]

Do computers in France not have Google?

[S.L.L.]

I'm not saying the Beatles aren't known, or that they aren't known more than Bo. Of course they are.

 

Simply an example of time moving forward. There's the old joke of "Wow... Paul was in a band before Wings?" It was around when I was a kid. Sure, a bad joke even then. But...

But now, it's the first time I ever heard it, and I'm guessing I'm not alone on that one. Outside of Dean Rasmussen, can't think of a soul on Earth who would associate Paul with Wings or his solo career before associating him with The Beatles. And don't take my word for it. 1, as previously mentioned was the best-selling album of the decade. Wingspan? Didn't place in the top ten. Unfortunately, the top ten is all that Nielsen SoundScan actually releases, so I can't tell if it was on the bubble or not. The best I can do is look at the Billboard charts, which uses Nielsen SoundScan to compile data. Despite this, they came to a different conclusion, placing 1 8th on the Top 200 for the last decade. Still not bad for a band that broke up 30 years earlier.

 

Wingspan didn't make the top 200 for the decade.

 

We shouldn't underestimate the ability of things we think are Big to fade into the back ground. Outkast?

You seriously think Outkast is comparable to The Beatles? Like, seriously? I mean, they were big...but Beatles big? Not to mention that the drop-off in quality from their peak work to Idlewild >>>>>> the drop-off in quality from The Beatles peak work to Let It Be. Or that Let It Be is still as good or better than most of Outkast's peak work. Or that Outkast's peak work constitutes five albums worth of material vs. The Beatles' eleven (thirteen, really, if you want to count the Past Masters compilations of their non-album material). Outkast's one #1 album vs. The Beatles' fourteen (just counting original US releases, reissues and compilations would bring The Beatles up to 21)? Outkast's three #1 singles vs. The Beatles' 21?

 

I don't think anyone is going to argue that The Beatles are every bit as big today as they were in the 60's. They split up 40 years ago, and two of them are dead now. By that very nature, they're going to be in the background today. But they're standing about as close to the foreground as they possibly can without being in it. Pretty easy to look into the background as see them standing there. Pretty easy to hear what they're saying from there, and pretty clear that there's still a shit ton of people - of all ages and demographics - who still want to hear it. Suggesting their fade is any way comparable to Bo Jackson's or Outkast's doesn't pass the laugh test. Yeah, they all faded into the background, but you can still get a lot of play from the background.

 

Bo is an example of time moving forward. The Beatles are an example of standing the test of time.

[Loss]

I'd also like to point out that little kids were crying when Michael Jackson died, and I know quite a few teenagers who love 80s Madonna songs.

 

I'm sure people exist that don't know who they are, but what's the point in bringing them up?

[Strummer]

so apparently Bryan made a comment that the internet takes it too easy on WWE booking because it is overshadowed by how bad TNA is and how bad WCW was.

 

agree/disagree?

 

here's the quote (from DVDVR)

 

The only reason WWE doesn't look like the most incompetently-booked promotion of this generation is because WCW booked itself out of business and TNA would have long since booked themselves out of business had they not had a rich guy funding his daughter's plaything.

[Loss]

WWE gets plenty of criticism.

[jdw]

You seriously think Outkast is comparable to The Beatles? Like, seriously?

I'm a Beatles fan. Likely a bigger Beatles fan than anyone on this board... jesus, I use to go to Beatles conventions when I'd never get caught dead at a pro wrestling convention if my life depended on it.

 

I don't think Outkast are bigger than the Beatles. I simply point to them as an example of something that was huge that years later (frankly not many) aren't a blip on the radar.

 

As far as the "Wow... Paul was in a band before Wings?" quote, my general take would be that if one hasn't heard the joke, one isn't a huge Beatles fan. It's a joke that Paul himself has commented over the years, and not really to put over Wings. Simply as a sign of how things move along. It's old and famous:

 

http://ask.metafilter.com/177032/You-mean-...nd-before-Wings

 

I suspect I could fill the thread with 250 links to joke without much effort... google search has 4.3M hits.

 

Just to be clear for anyone who thinks the biggest Beatles Fan on the boad is slogging the Beatles and so there's no misunderstanding:

 

Bo isn't the Beatles.

 

Wayne isn't the Beatles.

 

Michael Jordan isn't the Beatles.

 

Combine all three of those guys into one God of Sports, and they still aren't the Beatles.

 

Clear?

 

That said, it's not hard to find people who don't know dick about the Beatles. I could go one office over and I'd say it's a 80% chance that the person sitting in it doesn't know who they are. A bit too young, from another country, and he really isn't a music fan.

 

On the other hand, he would know who Inoki and Baba were.

 

John

[Dylan Waco]

so apparently Bryan made a comment that the internet takes it too easy on WWE booking because it is overshadowed by how bad TNA is and how bad WCW was.

 

agree/disagree?

 

here's the quote (from DVDVR)

 

The only reason WWE doesn't look like the most incompetently-booked promotion of this generation is because WCW booked itself out of business and TNA would have long since booked themselves out of business had they not had a rich guy funding his daughter's plaything.

I never agree with Bryan but this has been a talking point of mine for some time and he is dead on. That's why I think TNA is a net negative for the business. It lowers expectations and allows for the mediocre booking/writing in WWE to look like gold by comparison.

[Dylan Waco]

If I walked around town and surveyed everyone over the age of ten I ran into, I think it highly unlikely that I would run into anyone who didn't at least know who the Beatles were.

[Sean Liska]

so apparently Bryan made a comment that the internet takes it too easy on WWE booking because it is overshadowed by how bad TNA is and how bad WCW was.

 

agree/disagree?

 

here's the quote (from DVDVR)

 

The only reason WWE doesn't look like the most incompetently-booked promotion of this generation is because WCW booked itself out of business and TNA would have long since booked themselves out of business had they not had a rich guy funding his daughter's plaything.

I don't really get his point since WCW and TNA are the only really relevant American promotions of this generation. Who else is he comparing WWE with?

 

I think it's a dumb point because there have always been terrible pro wrestling companies around. WWE would benefit from being compared to late-stages AWA if this were the 80s, or Kansas City and Los Angeles before that, or NJPW during the early part of this decade, or XPW, etc. I don't buy that Pearce-ROH was better booked than WWE, or that AAA has been clearly better, or NOAH, or whatver else. WWE is just mediocre.

[El-P]

Do computers in France not have Google?

Nice to hear from you Schneider.

 

Anyway. The point is, I don't need to google the Beatles, Outkast nor Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods.

 

I see kids today wearing Nirvana T-shirt, and they were probably born at the same time Cobain shoot himself. And yeah tons of kids cried when Michael Jackson died. Despite the fact Jackson wasn't relevant at all during any year of their existence.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I don't recall seeing a great deal of American little kids all upset about Micheal Jackson. It seemed more of a "rest of the world" thing to me.

 

And I thought I was a mega Beatles fan, but I never went to a convention. That's cool, jdw.

[El-P]

It seemed more of a "rest of the world" thing to me.

Ah, those goofy "rest of the world" people.

[Ditch]

Anyway. The point is, I don't need to google the Beatles, Outkast nor Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods.

And that's my point in bringing him up. Bo Jackson was supposed to be a superstar on par with Jordan but his career ended early and very soon fell off the face of the earth. There's no reason why you should know him.

[S.L.L.]

As far as the "Wow... Paul was in a band before Wings?" quote, my general take would be that if one hasn't heard the joke, one isn't a huge Beatles fan. It's a joke that Paul himself has commented over the years, and not really to put over Wings. Simply as a sign of how things move along. It's old and famous:

Not as huge as you, I would admit. I think the joke might have faded into the background a bit. I mean, the link is about trying to find a modern equivalent since the original doesn't hold much weight anymore.

 

But yeah, I just missed out on that one somehow. My bad.

 

Just to be clear for anyone who thinks the biggest Beatles Fan on the boad is slogging the Beatles and so there's no misunderstanding:

 

Bo isn't the Beatles.

 

Wayne isn't the Beatles.

 

Michael Jordan isn't the Beatles.

 

Combine all three of those guys into one God of Sports, and they still aren't the Beatles.

 

Clear?

 

That said, it's not hard to find people who don't know dick about the Beatles. I could go one office over and I'd say it's a 80% chance that the person sitting in it doesn't know who they are. A bit too young, from another country, and he really isn't a music fan.

 

On the other hand, he would know who Inoki and Baba were.

I would allow than a young non-Westerner who doesn't listen to music might not know about The Beatles. But unless you're a missionary helping lepers in the third world 24/7, that probably doesn't describe the majority of the people you interact with. It's kind of a minor, silly point I'm belaboring, but they were a poor choice for your original analogy based on a questionable frame of reference. Like saying GSP is a more famous Canadian athlete than Wayne Gretzky, for example, except I can actually see the logic behind what you were trying to say.

[Johnny Sorrow]

It seemed more of a "rest of the world" thing to me.

Ah, those goofy "rest of the world" people.

 

I didn't say that.

 

 

(It's how we all felt seeing the rest of the world go ape about it, but I didn't say that. Oh and no offense, but now I can't read your posts without putting on a Peter Sellers Inspector Clouseau voice in my head. As a fair trade, feel free to read my horseshit with a New Jersey accent, bro. )

[El-P]

Oh and no offense, but now I can't read your posts without putting on a Peter Sellers Inspector Clouseau voice in my head.

Ah ah ! I actually find this quite funny !

 

As a fair trade, feel free to read my horseshit with a New Jersey accent, bro. )

I would, but my hears aren't able to distinguish this particular one, not familiar enough to me. Did DDP have a strong Jersey accent ?

The only american accent I'm really familiar with is the deep southern one. I can't say if someone is from New-York or Cali. I wonder if the differences are important (in France there are some extremely strong accent differences between north and south, east and west).

[Jingus]

It depends on lots of variables. I'm from the same hometown as Jeff Jarrett, but sound nothing remotely like that hick. Page has a Jersey accent, but not a really thick one; compare him to Tony Soprano, for example.

[KrisZ]

--Regarding Shane Carwin on twitter noting that Paul Heyman is going to work with him on promos, this is not a deal with UFC, but the production company that does the Countdown special and Spike TV hired Heyman to help with the Countdown show for UFC 131. His role was to help Brock Lesnar promote the fight, and with Lesnar pulling out, they asked him if he'd instead work with Carwin, which he's doing. It's not a UFC hire. The idea of Heyman working with UFC in teaching fighters how to promote matches (and how not to) isn't the world's worst idea.

[El-P]

So, are people really paying to hear Brian Alvarez talk to his grandma ?

[Bob Morris]

With regards to the whole "people who don't know who the Beatles are" versus "people who don't know who Bo Jackson is" debate, it goes like this:

 

Somebody who doesn't really follow rock music that closely... sure, it's not unusual for them to not know who the Beatles are.

 

Somebody who is very passionate about it, though, knows darn well who the Beatles are.

 

But it's possible that same person doesn't know who Leif Garrett is.

 

In other words, it's a question of who was big in music at one time, then faded into the background, but then either became popular again (even if not at the heights previously enjoyed) or faded further into obscurity and is "where are they now" trivia.

 

The former is the Beatles. The latter is Garrett.

 

Kids and young adults who are passionate about rock music know who the Beatles are. But they wouldn't know anything about Garrett.

 

And that's the point of Bo Jackson versus Michael Jordan and Wayne Gretzky.

 

Kids and young adults who are passionate about sports know who Jordan is.

 

They know who Gretzky is.

 

They don't know who Bo is.

 

People today still look up stuff about Jordan and Gretzky or try to find highlights of them. They don't do that with Bo Jackson.

 

And those who try to argue what it means are, with all due respect, being contrarian for the sake of it.

[Log]

[jdw]

People today still look up stuff about Jordan and Gretzky or try to find highlights of them. They don't do that with Bo Jackson.

I disagree with this point.

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...amp;oq=wayne+gr

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...ackson&aq=f

 

It's imperfect, but there are a similar number of Bo highlights as there are Wayne highlights on Youtube.

 

Mike is on a different level:

 

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...p;oq=michael+jo

 

That's a basic search. On could do different ones to find more Wayne, such as looking for the Oilers and the Cup. But something similar could be done with Bo and Auburn.

 

I do agree with the notion that Wayne is Ruthian, and Bo isn't. Globally, of course Wayne is bigger.

 

John