Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier
Nobody`s ever denied the power of marketing on here, what is being said is, that marketing was very different in the 1960s and focused much more on a set demographic group that followed popular music, since then marketing has evolved to take in more diverse demographic groups and far wider appeal. For example, somebody marketable today or over the last decade that can be fairly controversial like Marilyn Manson or Eminem would not have been marketable in the 1960s! (BTW I dislike both but they serve as a good example) Equally Frank Zappa was just too experimental and alternative to be marketed as the Beatles were...........surely YOU can even see that!
Also, you do realize that YouTube wasn`t around in the 1960s 
Oh dear!!! I see you are still typing your old punchline "Marketing-Sells" again, don`t you ever learn?
I asked you to reiterate again why the Beatles helped to destroy a culture, so as to hopefully draw some conclusion on this debate of yours, |
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter what decade you're in. Marketing=sells. If you market something enough it doesn't matter how controversial it is it will sell.
Look at the history of man. People are natural followers. It's in our nature. Even if someone like Zappa would take time for people to get used to eventually they would. This is an obvious thing.
I already explained how the Beatles played a part. It seems you people think you're smart but you're not seeing the big picture.
The 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s or 2000s...it doesn't matter. Marketing=sells all the time. If a big company wanted Zappa to become extremely famous in the 60s he could make it happen.
I just cannot understand how people can be so close minded and ignorant of obvious things.