You're really young aren't you?

I'm 28. I think the Beatles were the same age when they retired :P

Ouch! KO'd by Chalky...

Thanks Jim. I may even be older than the Beatles were when they called it quits. All that studio work had to make them tired.

So, let me see if I follow this logic; because you are (in 2009) the age the Beatles were when they broke up (in 1970) you are therefore qualified to say they were merely "studio magic" fluff? I fail to see any relationship between the two. What I am seeing is someone born long after the fact that did not experience the era. It would be like me commenting on Frank Sinatra’s ability/worth during his heyday in the late 40’s. Sure I have an impression of it but I couldn’t really know the real story unless I lived it. Sorry, but in my book your current age in this equation does nothing but make it clear that you are too young to fully appreciate what you're talking about.

castlebee, you asked me how old I was, so I just made a comparison about my age to the Beatles when they went kaput. It was a debate on who I thought was better. I didn't bring age into the topic. Age shouldn't have anything to do with a review. Maybe it tends to give more insight into a review (some of the time) but that doesn't make someone's opinion any less or more right/wrong. Overall, I think when an act like the Beatles who've never really lost popularity in 40yrs, it's fair game. It's like saying I can't review a 2009 Cadillac because I wasn't around in Cadillac's heyday of the 50's. Another example, is Billy Joel. I think his music is some of the most godawful that I've heard but since I wasn't around during his heyday, I guess that means I can't comment on his 'We Didn't Start the Fire' dribble. The Rolling Stones have always been one of my favorite bands, and I've seen them in concert (certainly not in their heyday though). I also own several of their albums, so I think I can make a good argument for them being better, and maybe I could've highlighted this more in my review. There are probably people who disliked the Beatles when they were topping the charts but I like the word you used, fluff. Sorry but I think it's just a difference of opinion.

I think CastleBee is definately qualified to comment on Frank Sinatra's classic 40's and 50's music from her vantage point in 2009. The assessment of the art need not reflect the the perspective of the day and age in which it was made. That information might be interesting to historians and make for good reading if you are into the culture of that time, but the art should stand or fall on its own merit.

I see both your points. Yet I still feel that being present for the entire journey gives you a little different (complete) point of view. Though not necessarily more valid.