When The Beatles flew from Liverpool, England to New York City in 1964, they had no idea they would become some of the most important men in music history. Sporting shiny black boots, perfectly starched suits, and identical mop-top hairstyles, their appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show, broadcast to over 73 million people across the country, ignited “Beatlemania” and found fans among high-school girls and music critics alike.
Over a half-century and the passing of two band members later, fans still tuned in en masse for the November 2023 release of “Now and Then,” the last Beatles song recorded featuring all four members. The song was created from a salvaged John Lennon demo tape and refined by McCartney, Harrison, and Starr in the ’90s, before its completion in 2023.
“Now and Then” performed impressively, reaching number one on the U.K. charts and becoming the country’s fastest-selling vinyl record of the 21st century.
It’s been over 50 years since the Beatles broke up. Anyone who was a teenager when Beatlemania arrived in the United States is now well past retirement age. Yet, a considerable crowd still anticipated the release of music by a group that should be, by virtue of time, irrelevant. Why does Paul McCartney still sell out stadiums? Why do people still care?
Time creates natural endpoints that every public figure must at some point reckon with. No group lives forever, as no individual lives forever. The Beatles were together for a meager seven years, yet their influence is felt across contemporary music. They are not just popular amongst the generations that grew up with them, but with younger listeners as well: 30% of the Beatles’ Spotify streams come from people aged 18 to 24. Conversely, groups like The Yardbirds or The Band, who were renowned in their time, have faded from present cultural consciousness.
Few recent celebrities seem able to capture the public’s attention quite as comprehensively as the Beatles have. Celebrity culture today is dominated by bite-sized celebrities who, after a short stint of fame, fade into insignificance. While one-hit wonders have always ridden the wave of a successful single to short-term fame, previously, musicians were constantly creating, performing, and promoting to prove themselves to be signed by exclusive industry executives. Technology—especially the rise of social media—has accelerated the rate at which individuals can acquire fame, briefly enjoy it, and then fade into irrelevance.
Take the dozens of micro-influencers on TikTok or YouTube who follow a now familiar career trajectory: posting enough videos online to be considered a public figure, securing brand deals, and releasing the occasional single, only to eventually disappear. Levels of fame that previously required months or years to achieve can now materialize in hours or days.
Which begs the question: Is there a shelf life to relevance? What enables some artists to remain relevant for decades, while others fade?
Today, carbon copies are far easier to find than musical revolutionaries. Hundreds of soft-spoken, guitar-strumming musicians and colorful-haired, tattooed rappers populate our culture and streaming sites. The internet has fundamentally altered the way people consume music. Instead of waiting in line for a cassette or a vinyl record, one can search for music in seconds and skip through songs without giving them a chance. The internet “supercharges the rate of information,” said Daniel Harrison, a professor of Musical Theory in the Department of Music at Yale University. An increased access to celebrities and their work is a byproduct.
It is easier to become famous today than it was half a century ago. One must only upload a short video to the internet and wait for views to roll in. This ease can platform controversial figures with incendiary audiences or, in the case of a musician like Noah Kahan—who had been making music that flew under the radar for years before finally gaining popularity on TikTok—can kickstart a career that may have been otherwise impossible.
Many criticize the ease and speed of modern fame. Creating and sharing music on social media with rapid production leads many music critics to characterize social media-based artists as disingenuous and cheap. Lindsay Wright, an Associate Professor in the Yale Department of Music argues that the dominance of the Internet in celebrity culture is not necessarily negative. “Every time technology evolves, things often speed up in certain ways. Communication chains get more extended, and people from further and different places can access things. TikTok is the most recent little tiny step and a very, very long history of all of us being more interconnected in ways that are liberating,” she said.
Still, some disillusioned consumers feel the modern high-speed reality detracts from the quality of work. “The older music was created by humans with passion and soul for their craft. That’s why their music is timeless—it is a gift for multiple generations to love,” said Iris Levine, a music photographer from Bell Bottom Blues Productions in Long Island, New York, “New celebrities are in [it] for the followers they gain and dollars they bring in. There is a certain coldness to it.”
So, what is the difference between the modern-age products and The Beatles? What made The Beatles the subject of countless musical biographies and documentaries? Is there something beyond the advent of social media, something more fundamental, that sets them apart?
Daniel Harrison said that the answer to these questions lies in the 16th and 17th centuries, when “composers were remembered and their works were performed even after they died.” Musical notation catalyzed the enduring memory of composition, and later, composers. Medieval religious figures desired their congregations to sing and pray in unison, so they developed a means of expressing music on paper. Their sheet music was certainly less intuitive than the form used today, but it allowed for the growth of music beyond the bounds of human mortality and memory. As musical notation developed, composers could increase the longevity of their work and thereby allow their renown to persist long past their individual deaths.
Accelerating past the 16th and 17th centuries and the historical context that spurred the birth of the musical celebrity, other societal factors have influenced fame and audience reception of a particular musical act—namely, youth culture. “It started in the 20s, with the recognition of [a misbehaving] youth generation. First by drinking when it was made illegal. Then by hairstyles, short skirts, [lewd] dance styles, racial mixing. In the 50s, it came back, and rock’n’roll [had] all the same themes,” said Harrison. The early 20th century saw a rapid development in almost all aspects of daily life—technology became steadily more widespread and accessible, and younger generations rebelled against a restrictive status quo. Youth culture started to shape popular culture, facilitating the growth of the celebrity figure, fandom culture, and public investment in the lives of celebrities. Musicians served the general public something they needed and wanted— something revolutionary.
It was the revolutionary nature of The Beatles that made them so successful. “They never stopped creating and never stopped pushing musical boundaries. They simultaneously fit into the current cultural zeitgeist but also propelled it forward and created a new set of norms and standards for the rock n roll scene,” said Carl Gedeon, a lawyer in New York City and an enthusiastic music fan.
The Beatles began their careers by catering to a well-liked musical genre before venturing further and developing styles of their own. The longevity of an artist’s fame depends, in part, on their ability to cater to a cultural moment. Those who are unquestionably successful are, Gedeon argues, “artists whose timing on the music scene either fit the current cultural zeitgeist or artists who were so revolutionary that they actually changed the current cultural zeitgeist.”
Over time, the Beatles’ image evolved. The mop-tops and suits disappeared, with mustaches and psychedelic-inspired outfits materializing in their wake. Their music became less pop and more dynamic and experimental. Over their seven years as a group, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr transformed the musical world. The Beatles began squarely in the mainstream but pushed the public into uncharted territory. This phenomenon is not unique to The Beatles, and it did not end with them.
Taylor Swift is a prime example of the type of fluid celebrity society craves. She began her career as a small-town country singer, settling within a comfortable niche of a teenage, female, predominately white, audience, singing about love and heartbreak. Swift was young and exciting and brought an innocent freshness to the music industry. When her fanbase demanded an outspoken female figure to represent their changing values, Swift’s presentation evolved. She now symbolizes female empowerment for generations of women, having reclaimed ownership of her music from her original record label. Swift strategically taps into musical trends and plans her collaborations for maximum virality. Is it the case, then, that any musician may maintain fame if they tailor their art to fit contemporary desires?
Beyoncé is another artist who gained fame by first fitting the zeitgeist and then making it her own, fulfilling the needs of a mainstream white world while also maintaining ties to a Black audience. “[Beyoncé’s] story of race and misogynoir and her understanding of how to translate it for the mainstream white world in a way that’s still innovative enough to capture the honest admiration of the Black-American world is a balancing act not many people have managed,” said Lindsay Wright. Beyoncé’s early career saw her standing out in a girl group that represented early 2000s music and fashion culture. When she transitioned into a solo artist, her music changed with her, solidifying her status as the mononymous Beyoncé—a figure for the white-dominated mainstream and Black worlds alike. Such tension is difficult to navigate, yet it is her success in doing so that makes her one of the most enduring artists of the 21st century.
Through sheer talent, hard work, and an acute awareness of the way they are perceived, Taylor Swift and Beyoncé stand out in a compelling and novel way. Audiences come to identify themselves not only in their music but in their journeys, growing with the artists as they progress from following trends to creating them. Consequently, artists like Taylor Swift and Beyoncé are propelled to a fame that is not easily lost.
The continued relevance of a musician relies on the judgment of their contemporaries. “There’s celebrity fame, which is just being known in general, and then there’s something more than that, which is people attributing greatness to someone for their actual skill,” said Wright. Not only can the masses dictate what is considered good, but “we [can] rely on something more like the Grammys, [where] experts who actually understand the genre have decided that this is good according to some level of criteria based in knowledge and education,” Wright continued. Accolades from genre critics signal “true greatness” to the public, delineating art which deserves further academic recognition. Musical figures can transform from “iconic” during a cultural moment to “important” for generations to come.
None of these factors alone explain why the success of certain artists endure and others fade. Technology has certainly changed, but it is in a constant state of evolution. Mozart endures across time, as does Ella Fitzgerald and The Beatles. Each started their career in different technological environments, yet maintained a continued public interest.
It might be that groups like the Beatles are the exception, not the rule. Enduring relevance seems to require a complex cocktail of timing, skill, style, and an ability to both move with and transform the public. Given the volatile and almost unreliable nature of public opinion, expiration dates remain conditional. The pure joy Beatles fans had for the release of “Now and Then” speaks for itself. “I was ecstatic,” said John Meuser, a music fan from New York City, “[It] proves again that brilliant music never sounds outdated.” As long as people care—as long as great music means something to somebody—fame has no shelf life.