Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 9:15:47 GMT
I've got a pair (in the unpopular and unfashionable black ash finish). They're not for sale. There's no point trying to explain/justify 'liking' something to someone whose tastes are entirely different to your own. If you can't convince Macca or Westie to like the Beatles, you've got no chance trying to sell them the virtues of the tiny Harbeths, I like the Beatles I just think they are massively over-rated. That's like saying Shakespeare is massively over-rated. He wrote some shite, just like the Beatles did, but they tower over popular music the way Shakespeare towers over literature. Which doesn't, of course mean that everyone will like either or both.
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 8, 2019 11:32:01 GMT
I think the Stones and Black Sabbath have had more influence on popular music, personally. At least the sort of music I like. I don't think there is any musical equivalent to Shakespeare. Not even Elvis.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 8, 2019 12:59:15 GMT
I think dvh as got it right, the Beatles are a good analogy to Shakespeare.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 13:09:03 GMT
I think dvh as got it right, the Beatles are a good analogy to Shakespeare. How? As far as I can see, it's about as analogous as comparing a pack of sausages to a morris minor.
|
|
|
Post by antonio on Jul 8, 2019 13:15:41 GMT
In their relative fields, music and literature. I really don't know were your coming from with your statement "sausages and morris minor".
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 8, 2019 15:01:51 GMT
if we accept Shakespeare was the best playwright ever, which is itself debatable, that means we have to accept that the Beatles were the best band ever. Which is clearly not the case.
1)For a while they were bigger than everyone else. 2)They did some good tunes (in amongst a pile of self-indulgent dross). 3)They were smart enough to split up before it went downhill too much. 4) They were all pretty rubbish on their own apart from Lennon but he had Yoko to drag him down to the standard of the others.
Compare this to Steely Dan: 1) All the tunes were good, there was no dross 2) They split up before it all went downhill but then got back together 20 years later and were still good. 3) Also good on their own as well. 4) No Yoko.
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Jul 8, 2019 15:39:15 GMT
if we accept Shakespeare was the best playwright ever, which is itself debatable, that means we have to accept that the Beatles were the best band ever. Which is clearly not the case.
1)For a while they were bigger than everyone else. 2)They did some good tunes (in amongst a pile of self-indulgent dross). 3)They were smart enough to split up before it went downhill too much. 4) They were all pretty rubbish on their own apart from Lennon but he had Yoko to drag him down to the standard of the others.
Compare this to Steely Dan: 1) All the tunes were good, there was no dross 2) They split up before it all went downhill but then got back together 20 years later and were still good. 3) Also good on their own as well. 4) No Yoko.
the same applies to the jam,weller quit wilst they were on top.
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 8, 2019 16:45:38 GMT
he was good on his own too, did three pretty good records.
|
|
|
Post by karma67 on Jul 8, 2019 16:48:20 GMT
he was good on his own too, did three pretty good records. yep,wild wood and stanley road was where he peaked imo,hes gone of the boil in recent years i think,too folky
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 12:14:17 GMT
if we accept Shakespeare was the best playwright ever, which is itself debatable, that means we have to accept that the Beatles were the best band ever. Which is clearly not the case. You have an alternative to Shakespeare as best playwright? Brian Rix maybe? Without the Beatles, the Sixties pop/rock scene would have been very different. FFS, most groups only formed because of them (eg The Byrds, who got together after watching 'A Hard Day's Night'). As for the Stones, they were only signed by Decca because the label had turned down the Beatles, and their first major hit was a Lennon/McCartney song!
|
|
|
Post by macca on Jul 9, 2019 12:26:40 GMT
if we accept Shakespeare was the best playwright ever, which is itself debatable, that means we have to accept that the Beatles were the best band ever. Which is clearly not the case. You have an alternative to Shakespeare as best playwright? Brian Rix maybe? Without the Beatles, the Sixties pop/rock scene would have been very different. FFS, most groups only formed because of them (eg The Byrds, who got together after watching 'A Hard Day's Night'). As for the Stones, they were only signed by Decca because the label had turned down the Beatles, and their first major hit was a Lennon/McCartney song! True. But who the F#ck is Brian Rix?
David Mamet could give old Shakey a run for his money.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2019 12:45:40 GMT
You have an alternative to Shakespeare as best playwright? Brian Rix maybe? Without the Beatles, the Sixties pop/rock scene would have been very different. FFS, most groups only formed because of them (eg The Byrds, who got together after watching 'A Hard Day's Night'). As for the Stones, they were only signed by Decca because the label had turned down the Beatles, and their first major hit was a Lennon/McCartney song! True. But who the F#ck is Brian Rix?
David Mamet could give old Shakey a run for his money.
Was famous in the dim and dusty depths of the past.
|
|