Sabres Fan in NS Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Am I he only one that doesn't like Floyd? Burn him!! Quote
darksabre Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Am I he only one that doesn't like Floyd? I liked Floyd a lot when I was a teenager. Don't really like them at all now. I still like watching The Wall though. Quote
Eleven Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 I recognize the Beatles as the greatest band ever for what they did, but taste wise, for me, it's Stones > Beatles Boy band. Quote
nfreeman Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Am I he only one that doesn't like Floyd? I'm with ya there. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Am I he only one that doesn't like Floyd? I can't imagine you are. When you get into the business of Pink Floyd, Queen, and other "all-time great" bands (just not, y'know, the greatest of all-time), you're more than entitled to say "pass, not my cup of tea." Of course, you're entitled to do that with The Beatles, Stones, etc. too. Boy band. You've posited this before about The Beatles. I'm not entirely sure that it's a true take. If it is, it's a bad one -- and it's not improving with repetition. Edited October 5, 2016 by That Aud Smell Quote
josie Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Am I he only one that doesn't like Floyd? High school was when I was obsessed with Floyd, Zeppelin, The Who, Beatles. I kinda hate that disastrous relationships and growing pains kinda tinged a lot of that music with bad memories for me. I do like the occasional Beatles wander; Sgt Pepper was and is one of my favorite albums of all time. It's just a journey. Or the Who Live at Leeds. And some Zeppelin, when I pull the vinyl out. The Battle of Evermore is just the perfect song to paint by sometimes. I fell in love with them young, and read every book I could find, and discovered that, lo and behold, these rock gods were just people- flawed people at that. And some of their flaws regarding women I hate to say really tarnished my love of their work- rendered some of the beauty of the songs twisted. Should watch the Wall again. The animation was a lot of fun in it, in a good ol' acid trippy way. And I should rewatch Tommy. Grew up with that movie- was describing it to a friend the other day when I realized just how bonkers/wonderful it is. Queen, no joke, saved my life a couple times in college. The show must go on, who wants to live forever? I'm pretty deep in an Americana rut right now. And old blues. I love hearing the original inspirations to the big bands mentioned above. Quote
Sabres Fan in NS Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Finally, someone mentioned the only band that held a light to the only band that mattered. Queen is #1(a) to The Clash in my books. And, I agree with 11 that The Beatles were certainly a *Boy Band*. At least until 1969. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 And, I agree with 11 that The Beatles were certainly a *Boy Band*. At least until 1969. I recall that there were those who seceded that notion. That The Beatles were at any time something akin to a mere boy band is among the worst takes I've ever read here, or anywhere for that matter. That'd include the internet, print media, bathroom walls, etc. Quote
Randall Flagg Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Any musician in either the Stones or the Beatles could not sniff the jocks of Jimmy Page or JPJ. This is objective fact and I hate all of you. > : ( Edited October 5, 2016 by Randall Flagg Quote
Eleven Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Finally, someone mentioned the only band that held a light to the only band that mattered. Queen is #1(a) to The Clash in my books. And, I agree with 11 that The Beatles were certainly a *Boy Band*. At least until 1969. Yeah, and they broke up the year after. They were manufactured, produced, and marketed. As soon as Epstein died, it started going downhill. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Yeah, and they broke up the year after. They were manufactured, produced, and marketed. As soon as Epstein died, it started going downhill. The most unheralded boy band Svengali of them all: The rector at St. Peter's Woolton in Liverpool. Quote
WildCard Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Any musician in either the Stones or the Beatles could not sniff the jocks of Jimmy Page or JPJ. This is objective fact and I hate all of you. > : (Instrumentally, no. Nor Bonham for that matter Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Any musician in either the Stones or the Beatles could not sniff the jocks of Jimmy Page or JPJ. This is objective fact and I hate all of you. > : ( Nor was Jimmy Page's musicianship ever the equivalent of, say, that of Steve Howe (of Yes). I don't know that being a superior musician (in terms of technical skill and virtuosity) is the relevant measure here. Quote
Randall Flagg Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Instrumentally, no. Nor Bonham for that matterDo you play? Nor was Jimmy Page's musicianship ever the equivalent of, say, that of Steve Howe (of Yes). I don't know that being a superior musician (in terms of technical skill and virtuosity) is the relevant measure here. This is true, and I love prog stuff. But the Beatles and Stones are simplistic to the point of being unlistenable to me. I understand and respect their impact on music. I can't fathom a way in which it was better by any measure than Zeppelin. Instrumental ability isn't the main measure here but it's incredibly important. Edited October 5, 2016 by Randall Flagg Quote
WildCard Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) Unfortunately I do not play, Flagg. If I did, it would e piano. It's something I always wanted to learn, just don't know where to start Edited October 5, 2016 by WildCard Quote
ubkev Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Does no one else find it weird when Robert Plant goes off on his lord of the rings babble in the middle of a song? Quote
Randall Flagg Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 I do not play, Flagg. If I did, it would e piano. It's something I always wanted to learn, just don't know where to startI'm not much of a player, and I can't wait to have time again. But my experience with it, and listening to these groups, Richards/Harrison/Lennon just don't touch Jimmy. No disrespect to them. Jimmy is just a freak.I will say that I don't like Plant, but I never listen to/care about lyrics in music. They're largely irrelevant to me Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 This is true, and I love prog stuff. But the Beatles and Stones are simplistic to the point of being unlistenable to me. I understand and respect their impact on music. I can't fathom a way in which it was better by any measure than Zeppelin. Instrumental ability isn't the main measure here but it's incredibly important. I understand where you're coming from, and respect that point of view. I used to hold that point of view. I think you're in the company of a very small slice of people when it comes to criteria for enjoying music. As time marched on for me, I became less and less insistent on the need for virtuosity in the musicians I enjoyed (although I can still enjoy that, too). There's a whole lot more to popular music than being able to shred. Does no one else find it weird when Robert Plant goes off on his lord of the rings babble in the middle of a song? Not at all. And I think you risk being unduly dismissive of how important and influential that sort of discursive revelation was from Plant: Quote
Randall Flagg Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 I understand where you're coming from, and respect that point of view. I used to hold that point of view. I think you're in the company of a very small slice of people when it comes to criteria for enjoying music. As time marched on for me, I became less and less insistent on the need for virtuosity in the musicians I enjoyed (although I can still enjoy that, too). There's a whole lot more to popular music than being able to shred. Not at all. And I think you risk being unduly dismissive of how important and influential that sort of discursive revelation was from Plant: My tastes have evolved in different ways, so I can understand what you say as well. Maybe I'll revisit those groups someday and feel the same way. Rush and Zeppelin have been the two unmovables at the top, and I don't expect that to change, though. My current direction is heaviness. I'm turning into a metalhead, I think. Quote
SwampD Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Does no one else find it weird when Robert Plant goes off on his lord of the rings babble in the middle of a song? me. English writer, English band. Makes sense. That's the scene all audio engineers like to point out the inconsistencies with that SM57 having a wind screen in some cuts and not in others. So I'm doing it now. Quote
WildCard Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) I'm not much of a player, and I can't wait to have time again. But my experience with it, and listening to these groups, Richards/Harrison/Lennon just don't touch Jimmy. No disrespect to them. Jimmy is just a freak. I will say that I don't like Plant, but I never listen to/care about lyrics in music. They're largely irrelevant to me Oh no doubt. But lyrics matter a lot for me, and so does the raw emotion of the artist. Queen and the Stones did that combination the best IMO. Mercury was like no other when it comes to pouring his soul into a song, and Jagger and the Stones were just so bluesy and soulful. Probably the reason I love old Motown music so damn much. Honestly I'm amazed lyrics take a backseat for you but you love Rush. Ironically, Rush is incredibly meh for me Oh and Bob Dylan sucks. There, I said it. He has 1-2 good songs, which are ruined by his terrible voice. Does no one else find it weird when Robert Plant goes off on his lord of the rings babble in the middle of a song?Zeppelin did that in a lot of songs Edited October 5, 2016 by WildCard Quote
darksabre Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Oh no doubt. But lyrics matter a lot for me, and so does the raw emotion of the artist. Queen and the Stones did that combination the best IMO. Mercury was like no other when it comes to pouring his soul into a song, and Jagger and the Stones were just so bluesy and soulful. Probably the reason I love old Motown music so damn much. Honestly I'm amazed lyrics take a backseat for you but you love Rush. Ironically, Rush is incredibly meh for me Oh and Bob Dylan sucks. There, I said it. He has 1-2 good songs, which are ruined by his terrible voice. Zeppelin did that in a lot of songs Bob Dylan DOES suck. Quote
That Aud Smell Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 Bob Dylan DOES suck. The Bertolt Brecht (sp) of modern popular music. (Widely praised as an essential influence over everything that came after him - his work legitimately enjoyed by, like, 17 people.) Quote
darksabre Posted October 5, 2016 Report Posted October 5, 2016 The Bertolt Brecht (sp) of modern popular music. (Widely praised as an essential influence over everything that came after him - his work legitimately enjoyed by, like, 17 people.) Dylan was timely, but not timeless. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.