smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Sam Smith <sam@lullabypit.com> |
| Subject | Re: Fabs vs Floyd |
| Date | Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:11:30 -0700 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (1.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
And your earlier point about this 'moment in time' which will pass is a good one. At this moment, is PF more important? There have been periods of time when not only were the Beatles not particularly influential (but much more than they were given credit for), but also considered outright unfashoinable. I'm thinking of that glorious period post Fabs, the early 70's leading up to and through punk. I meant glorious, sarcastically, by the way.
You could look at this like a stockmarket. Fab stock may go thru some peaks and valleys, but if you average it out since 1964 their stock has risen higher and higher, and a slope probably greater than anyone else.
Hell, it's been through the roof.
My buddy over on the LiveJournal community has made the argument - quite
aptly, I think - that the Fab influence is so pervasive that even when
it's not obvious, it's there. So in investment terms, you're probably
always going to want some BeatleCorp in the portfolio....
--
_______________________
Sam Smith, PhD
[TABLE NOT SHOWN]
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.