Can We Get Another Beatles thread?

p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Laughing at me doesn't defend your position. You claimed that nobody would be able to name even one important prog act from thr 70s that wasn't influenced by The Beatles. I named one. You said one of the most ignorant and misinformed things I think I've ever heard somebody say on this forum, and now you're trying to wiggle out of it by laughing off my rebuttal.

Calm down already. We're not fighting. At least, I'm not. In fact, I'll give you an example of what I asked for myself: Mike Oldfield.

splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them! Jethro Tull . . . I doubt it. You calling me a liar? Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said. Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem. I don't even know what to say. I know you were being a smart-ass in your last comment. That was obvious. It's still my opinion that you're an idiot.

This quote pyramid is starting to be one of those things where if you stare at it long enough, the image begins to move on its own.  My girlfriend says I even closed my eyes and started dancing around like a chicken when she told me to. 

splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them! Jethro Tull . . . I doubt it. You calling me a liar? Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said. Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem. I don't even know what to say.

I know you were being a smart-ass in your last comment. That was obvious. It's still my opinion that you're an idiot.

Anyway.   The Beatles?  Talented bunch whatever your definition.  But people do go on about them so.

^ What?

splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: p0mt3 wrote: splyu wrote: Name even one important prog rock band from the 70s that was not influenced by them! Jethro Tull . . . I doubt it. You calling me a liar? Yeah. Obviously that's exactly what I said.

Well then you're an idiot. I clearly backed up my point with that video I linked to. If you chose not to watch it and stay in your delusion, that's your own problem.

No sorry we've reached our quota of Beatles threads. 

Me, I don't have much interest in their stuff until Rubber Soul and later.  I never go out of my way to listen to it these days because it's been ingrained in my brain, but it's still good stuff. 

I have noticed that sometimes you younger farts just don't get the music us older farts revere.


Edited by Slartibartfast - November 20 2009 at 09:36

MovingPictures07 wrote: [Their songs are easily digestible because if you show them to any randomly selected person of the general population---even someone with no musical knowledge whatsoever---chances are that that person will thoroughly enjoy the composition. There's no other band that quite has that same effect; it's the simplification of the music and overall initial attractiveness to most minds. I wouldn't want it.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Most people enjoy Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. Just because many people enjoy it doesn't make it easily digestible. Not necessarily. Typically though, and it depends on the target audience you're talking. I'm beginning to dislike Henry Cow just because they're your avatar. Why? What does that have to do with anything?

Equality 7-2521 wrote: MovingPictures07 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: A craftsman is one who is skilled in a particular craft. A talent is a skill. Could you give me your definition of talent?  I think it takes something more than effort since no popular band has obtained their notoriety and I'm sure many have worked as hard. It is possible to be skilled in a particular craft that is seemed to be full of value by many and worthless by few. Just because a craftsman spends years making something does not necessitate that it is full of intrinsic value or importance. And that is beyond what the Beatles did; they crafted something which is easily digestible, recognizable, and memorable. Why would anyone want their notoriety? A definition of talent would still be nice. Yes an object may be of no worth to some, but that says nothing of the talent required to make it. An elevator to the sun would be of no importance or value, but would obviously take incredible talent to produce. You're still talking about these songs like they're Top 40 hits gone in a year. Is decades of memorability not worth anything? Easily digestible? What makes their songs easily digestible, but not half the bands in your top 20? And yes who would want the notoriety of being considered the best and most influential rock/pop songwriters of all time. How silly of me to bring that up.

Alright, I suppose a clear understanding of vocabulary needs to be sorted out. If we define talent by the way you're discussing it, then the Beatles had talent at their particular craft; but it is certainly something which I personally find to be of 0% value whatsoever and I honestly do not find anything special about their songwriting abilities. That's simply an assessment; and why I hesitate to say they had any talent.

Their songs are easily digestible because if you show them to any randomly selected person of the general population---even someone with no musical knowledge whatsoever---chances are that that person will thoroughly enjoy the composition. There's no other band that quite has that same effect; it's the simplification of the music and overall initial attractiveness to most minds.

I wouldn't want it.