Max wrote:

APRTW wrote:

It might be the blend and the head butting that made this season work.

Whether it's the Beatles, or the Cardinals, some head butting among creative geniuses can produce much better results than when one mind has complete control, or did you like Wings better than the Beatles?

Depends if you'd had enough of silly love songs ...

AP has penis-envy the size of Florida when it comes to music that was before his time.  We just brush this shit off, Web.

Max wrote:

AP has penis-envy the size of Florida when it comes to music that was before his time.  We just brush this shit off, Web.

No really.  I am thinking of starting the classical 90s music club.  We will sit around and talk about how Red Hot Chili Peppers and  Dave Matthews Band changes the world we live in.

alz wrote:

APRTW wrote:

The Beatles sucked

APRTW wrote:

how Red Hot Chili Peppers and  Dave Matthews Band changes the world we live in.

It's suddenly becoming very difficult to take you seriously, or was that sarcasm?


I could understand disliking "The Monkeys" or any number of bands from that era NOT NAMED "The Beatles".

I was 5 when a post-Beatles John Lenon was murdered at the lobby of the Dakota Building, and I still understand why people loved them so much.

First quote was serious the second was sarcasm.  You likely got confused by the Chilli Pepper reference because they are listenable.  I would rather listen to a poodle getting sodomized by a german shepard then the Dave Mathews Bands. 

The group of drugged out hippies that called themselfs the Beatles might have been important to you and a certain generation but that is it.  Music is music.  It is played until it wears its welcome out and then another song is played in its place.  The reason that it is wrote is to make money, not make a political statement or change people lives.  That stuff is just marketing.  I have a hard time understanding why groups of seemingly realistic people put music of there youth up on a pedestal just because it was popular when they were drunk, high or bang chicks.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I have a hard time understanding why groups of seemingly realistic people put music of there youth up on a pedestal just because it was popular when they were drunk, high or bang chicks."

Because I was drunk, high and banging chicks.

But now you are not.  At least not all three.  Your married so we can cross out the last one for sure.  Looking back isnt it easy to see that it was just noise in the background.

Well, I just told you I was 5 when Lenon was killed (10 years after the Beatles were no longer a band), so saying it was important to my generation is not accurate. However, you'd have to be certifiably insane to decide that older music was shit because it's old. The Beatles were fantastic. I don't pretend to be a fan, and don't own a single album, but they were definitely larger than the biased label you just attached to them.

There's very little in modern music with the conviction and effort that was put in back in the days. Now, the road to being a premier talent involves a game show with Simon bitching out every 3rd contestant. I'm not going to slam every artist, in nearly every genre there's someone who does it differently, and brilliantly. For Artie and the Rap genre? I don't think any rap artist will touch the success Eminem found while bitching about drugs, divorced-dad, and general shit talking. Do you love him? Up to you, but irrelevant. I can't call him a fad, the man was iconic in the 90's and 2000's. He still is, honestly. He could produce an album of him taking a shit, and he'd still sell a few million copies. He sold more than Van Halen, another "trend" of the 80's.

1) The Beatles
2) Elvis Presley
3) Michael Jackson
4) Madonna
5) Elton John

are the top 5. If you think the Beatles suck, then you simply have to qualify that with ALL MUSIC SUCKS, because nobody has had more success, ever.

"For Artie and the Rap genre? I don't think any rap artist will touch the success Eminem found while bitching about drugs, divorced-dad, and general shit talking. Do you love him? Up to you, but irrelevant. I can't call him a fad, the man was iconic in the 90's and 2000's. He still is, honestly. He could produce an album of him taking a shit, and he'd still sell a few million copies. He sold more than Van Halen, another "trend" of the 80's."

Point taken, and I know next to nothing about Eminem, but let's not confuse popularity with talent. If they were equivalent, we'd be building statues of Steve Vai and Madonna would be giving $5 blowjobs in downtown Detroit.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I have a hard time understanding why groups of seemingly realistic people put music of there youth up on a pedestal just because it was popular when they were drunk, high or bang chicks."

Because I was drunk, high and banging chicks.

I'm obviously going to "date" myself now.  When the Beatles came out with "I want to hold your hand" I was just turning 13.  I grew up with the Beatles & all the other classic rock and roll music.  I DID NOT do drugs at any time during this period nor did I drink, and this female did not "bang chicks" - LOL!  The music from my youth is what they pick when they're trying to sell us something on TV.  The reason they do that is because the music from my youth was so darned GREAT!  I can't think of one song from current times that would make me want to just get up & dance or sing like, say for instance, "Pretty Woman" by Roy Orbison! 

Just sayin....

alz wrote:

After a little thought, I think the most irritating thing about this is the mingling with Fact/Opinion that is being stated.

There's also a clear age line being drawn. When I was younger (through the 90's) I believed that Korn, Limp Bizcut, Nirvana, Pearl Jam were all major players in the age of music. I enjoyed some Metallica, Aerosmith, even the occassional KISS song well after their premier days. All other music was shit! It's old!

However, you will reach a point in your life where you will attempt to maintain the youth connection through music, but will inevitably drift out to the other older music too. I began to notice the work of Jim Croce, Jimmy Buffet, Billy Joel, Don McClean (sp?), The Eagles, etc. I realized that older music had great value and listening quality. I didn't like all of it, some was too indicitive of the genre for me to fully appreciate. At some point, you'll expand your cultural education to a more mature point too.

For some comedy I put together a list of other people/things who "sucked" using your scale of nothing other than opinion, paired with them being the best/most successful at what they did.

Bill Gates sucked at making money.
Pete Rose sucked at hitting.
Nolan Ryan sucked at pitching.
The Yankees suck at baseball.
The Lakers suck at basketball.
John Wooden sucked at coaching.
Albert Einstein was an idiot.
Babe Ruth sucked at baseball.
Stan Musial sucked at baseball.
The United States sucks at war.
Antonio Stradivari sucked at making violins.

Jerry Sandusky sucked as Penn State's defensive coordinator.

artie_fufkin wrote:

APRTW wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I have a hard time understanding why groups of seemingly realistic people put music of there youth up on a pedestal just because it was popular when they were drunk, high or bang chicks."

Because I was drunk, high and banging chicks.

But now you are not.  At least not all three.  Your married so we can cross out the last one for sure.  Looking back isnt it easy to see that it was just noise in the background.

I suppose if you put it that way ... LOL.
I always promised myself I'd stay current with the music scene. Rap kind of ended all of that. I realize I'm not the prototypical 20-something urbanite, but just don't get it.

Dont feel bad.  I never got the rap either.  I do know enough to know some of the songs (do you call them songs?) but I wouldnt say it is my deal.

"Blah balh Blah.  It is just music.  Songs come and go like tv shows and bad hair cuts.


Edit: You do understand I am not singling out any type of music or generation of music?  That is my point, it is all the same.  I am not a Beatles fan, it is not that big of deal.  My annoyance comes when folks who live through or shortly after the 70s act like they lived through some magical musical time in the world.  That makes me laugh."

It was magical - you're just jealous 

alz wrote:

AP, it was the 60s, not the 70s.

I just found it amusing that you automagically put the Beatles in with .... what did you call them? Drug-using hippies? Something to that effect. They spent a solid amount of time onstage wearing suits, because they came out of the tail end of the 50s. Your genre's are off.

http://www.beatlesbible.com/features/drugs/

APRTW wrote:

The group of drugged out hippies that called themselfs the Beatles might have been important to you and a certain generation but that is it.  Music is music.  It is played until it wears its welcome out and then another song is played in its place.  The reason that it is wrote is to make money, not make a political statement or change people lives.  That stuff is just marketing.  I have a hard time understanding why groups of seemingly realistic people put music of there youth up on a pedestal just because it was popular when they were drunk, high or bang chicks.

First off, the Beatles broke up when I was five.  So their music outlived the 60's in fine style.  The music of my youth might have sucked in comparison the 60's, but as my thread in music suggests, the 80's and 90's got worse and worse.  Maybe you are just envious that music of previous generations was better than the music of yours?

As for music being ear candy, to be consumed and forgotten, I like this example:

In 1580, Irish soldiers under Fiach McHugh O'Byrne defeated an English army under Lord Grey at the Battle of Glenmalure . . . and they're STILL singing about it!