But at least they know who Paul mccartney is and that he's "relevant" even in 2012.
Not like a bunch of teenager asking you who he is and thinking Coldplay or Artic Monkeys have invented rock n roll.

Like those kids who don't understand where's the plagiarism between Lady Gaga and Madonna.

The lack of culture is deeper every year. That's why there's nothing new in the "current musical lanscape where Mccartney is not relevant".
Every new artist simply copies the one that worked before. They don't even always have the decency to quote them, and why would they, no fucking teenager who's gonna buy their album knows anything prior 2000.

At least a band like Oasis or Blur hadn't reinvented the wheel, but they made great music able to stand along the Beatles or The Kinks or The Stones.

Now it's just markieting act, for one real artist paying hommage to the 60's like Amy Winehouse , you have 5 duffy, lana del rey...
You like 80's pop ? get MGMT, Justice...
Don't even bother to listen to New Order "they're not relevant to the current musical landscape."

Fuck that. Every teenager old enough to tweet should know who Paul Mccartney is or at least should google him before asking " Who is this old guy ?" on fucking tweeter.

My mate said to me earlier:
"The Stone Roses are irrelivant, nobody knows who they are. No way will they headline a fesival, they aren't big enough. Only old people want to see them."

I agree.

As time rolls on people will forget who the members were. There are people who can barely remember George Harrison's name. And I've met people who only know Ringo as the guy with the funny name. But the group will always live on. And that is what counts in the end.

Paul McCartney hasn't been musically relevant since the 80's. And that's the truth. There are some who are equating being historically remembered with being relevant. WWII will always be remembered, but if you ask some random American, "who were the major American generals in that war", they wouldn't be able to answer you And in their time and for a period after their times, those guys were rock stars and their names were known by every American. So as time goes on the same will happen to John Lennon, the same will happen to Paul McCartney.

The names will always be there for whoever wants to look them up, but to think that for the rest of time or even for the next 20 years that people will be able name even two people from the Beatles, is living in a dream world. This is how history works. The names which were once vibrant and magical from hundreds of years ago, or even eighty years ago, fade away. It's the events that those people were involved in which are most readily remembered.

There is a lot of over-simplifying and over-blowing this situation on all sides. Me included. We can't really blame a generation who's parents grew up listening to 80's music to know who a legend from the sixties is without help from others.

Whatever. Ignorance is still NOT bliss.

Cheers!

But the truth to who ?

To the people who still buy his albums, to the people who are still going to see him live ?
Do you forget that Chaos and Creation in the Backyard in 2005 had brillant reviews. He had a lot of bad years, but to say he's irrelevant and that's the truth seems a little pretentious.

He's still here when your "relevant" artist at the moment won't be in a few years (or in 6 months)
What's this "relevant" means anyway ? You don't stop being relevant because you're old ffs.
If you go down that road, Noel Gallagher isn't relevant since 1996. But he's still relevant to us and to himself, so you should have more respect for an artist and his fans. An artist is always relevant as long as he's still making music.

I think it more depends on how we use it... Most people are really stupid, and let the opportunities go to waste, but some of us have learned to use it to our advantage....

Okay. Eric Clapton has had brilliant reviews, people still buy his albums, people still go to see him live. But that doesn't make him musically relevant. I'm going to stop debating with you because you're obviously debating from an emotional place. Which is a bad method of debating. It clouds one's judgement.

You obviously have no more points to defend, and just about all your point have beaten back by several members. You're hypnotized by what Paul McCartney did do 30 years ago, instead what he's done the last 30 years. Instead, you debate like a crazed fan. Full of emotion, yet with no ground to stand on.

I don't decide who is relevant or not. The general public does. Which is the point that me and Gd were making. Does Paul McCartney albums sales, tour sales etc, make him relevant to the average person walking on the street? I don't think so. Case in point the fact that people on Twitter barely knew who he was. You're bringing out examples of why he would be relevant to his own fanbase, but those things don't matter. I could do the same thing for Oasis if I wanted to, but that doesn't make them musically relevant to the general music public, just to their own fanbase. And there is a difference.

I remember my sister coming home and saying that she stood up in here High School class and she was the only person who could name the four Beatles. I'm not saying who is relevant and who isn't, but when you go onto twitter and people don't know who he is or if you go into a high school classroom and people do not know who is, then how can one say that he is still musically relevant? Especially, to this new generation. Which is the only point that me and GD have been making.