Coronavirus COVID-19

[UNI88]

I think Swift is a valid comparison. She's extremely talented and yugely popular. My daughter loves her music and we listen to it when we're in the car on a long drive together. I wouldn't listen to it when driving by myself but like the Beatles I don't mind listening to it if that's what someone else really wants.

Well IIRC, you’re a fan of Husker Du so you I and I realize that the pop label can be used with derision.

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

[kalm]

Well IIRC, you’re a fan of Husker Du so you I and I realize that the pop label can be used with derision.

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

[Caribbean Hen]

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

88

All those cutting edge bands lap McCartneys balls

musicians know!

[UNI88]

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

So the BL analogy was almost as bad as calling trump a fascist?

What beer would you compare them to? Sam Adam’s? New Belgium? Maybe Yuengling? They couldn’t sniff Toppling Goliath’s jock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

So the BL analogy was almost as bad as calling trump a fascist?

What beer would you compare them to? Sam Adam’s? New Belgium? Maybe Yuengling? They couldn’t sniff Toppling Goliath’s jock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump is clearly a fascist. You and Ganny lost that one long ago.

Fullers ESB

[kalm]

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

88

All those cutting edge bands lap McCartneys balls

musicians know!

You have me and C Hen agreeing. How much lower are you willing to slide?

[SeattleGriz]

Small price indeed, especially considering his recent lies acting as if he wasn't responsible for the measures enacted.

[kalm]

Got my booster today. Flu in a couple weeks.

[houndawg]

Cream rises to the top.

It's a matter of personal preference. The Beatles were the Taylor Swift of the time. Talented but a vanilla pop band that was easy to listen to but lacked an edge. I'd take Zeppelin or the Stones over the Beatles and Cream/Clapton over all of them.

Indeed on personal preference.

Your Swift comment cracked me up. My first boss in the golf business who’s still a great friend grew up with the Beatles. He still plays them when we’re golfing. I mentioned last year during a round of golf with my boys that prior to Revolver, the Beatles were a pop band. My friend and my oldest son (also a huge fan) still haven’t been able to let that go to this day.

no, prior to Rubber Soul they were a pop band - Revolver came out about six months later. Which in and of itself is a measure of their prolific talents

[houndawg]

I think Swift is a valid comparison. She's extremely talented and yugely popular. My daughter loves her music and we listen to it when we're in the car on a long drive together. I wouldn't listen to it when driving by myself but like the Beatles I don't mind listening to it if that's what someone else really wants.

Well IIRC, you’re a fan of Husker Du so you I and I realize that the pop label can be used with derision.

Well...that escalated quickly....

[houndawg]

Well IIRC, you’re a fan of Husker Du so you I and I realize that the pop label can be used with derision.

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Music is largely a matter of personal opinion - suffice it to say that your opinion is shared by virtually no one with any sort of musical education.

[houndawg]

Dude…I’m not arguing with you regarding the first paragraph. I’m the same.

However, you clearly crossed a line with the BL analogy. It’s tough to get more cutting edge, and still with mass appeal (hence pop as in popular) than the Beatles were. Most cutting edge bands you ever loved would disagree with you on that one.

So the BL analogy was almost as bad as calling trump a fascist?

What beer would you compare them to? Sam Adam’s? New Belgium? Maybe Yuengling? They couldn’t sniff Toppling Goliath’s jock.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They would be more like Anchor Steam, way ahead of the curve

[houndawg]

Well IIRC, you’re a fan of Husker Du so you I and I realize that the pop label can be used with derision.

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Do you make this nonsense just for fun? I can agree that they maybe weren't as cutting edge as say, The Mothers of Invention or Moby Grape or Jefferson Airplane or Quicksilver or Its a Beautiful Day but they also weren't in San Francisco which at the time was the undisputed location of the cutting edge

[kalm]

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Do you make this nonsense just for fun? I can agree that they maybe weren't as cutting edge as say, The Mothers of Invention or Moby Grape or Jefferson Airplane or Quicksilver or Its a Beautiful Day but they also weren't in San Francisco which at the time was the undisputed location of the cutting edge

As far as the Brits go, the Kinks were arguably more cutting edge than the Beatles. And equally as good with their songwriting.

[GannonFan]

Do you make this nonsense just for fun? I can agree that they maybe weren't as cutting edge as say, The Mothers of Invention or Moby Grape or Jefferson Airplane or Quicksilver or Its a Beautiful Day but they also weren't in San Francisco which at the time was the undisputed location of the cutting edge

As far as the Brits go, the Kinks were arguably more cutting edge than the Beatles. And equally as good with their songwriting.

Again, a lot of this is opinion-based. I like the Kinks, and you can make an argument that they were on par with the Beatles, but the Beatles were far more prolific than the Kinks were. That plays a lot into why the Beatles were so and are still so revered.

[UNI88]

As far as the Brits go, the Kinks were arguably more cutting edge than the Beatles. And equally as good with their songwriting.

Again, a lot of this is opinion-based. I like the Kinks, and you can make an argument that they were on par with the Beatles, but the Beatles were far more prolific than the Kinks were. That plays a lot into why the Beatles were so and are still so revered.

The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift.

I know I'm in the minority but I'll take Cream, the Kinks, Chuck Berry or the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

[kalm]

As far as the Brits go, the Kinks were arguably more cutting edge than the Beatles. And equally as good with their songwriting.

Again, a lot of this is opinion-based. I like the Kinks, and you can make an argument that they were on par with the Beatles, but the Beatles were far more prolific than the Kinks were. That plays a lot into why the Beatles were so and are still so revered.

The Beatles had more pop appeal and were less satirical in their lyrics. The Kinks were also banned from the US for 4 years in the late 60’s for drunkenness and boorish behavior on stage (The Davies brothers fought…a lot). That had to play a role in their stardom over here.

Village Green Preservation Society is one of my all time favorite songs and I more recently discovered Days which is a beautiful and sentimental tune.

Love them both.

[Caribbean Hen]

Again, a lot of this is opinion-based. I like the Kinks, and you can make an argument that they were on par with the Beatles, but the Beatles were far more prolific than the Kinks were. That plays a lot into why the Beatles were so and are still so revered.

The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift.

I know I'm in the minority but I'll take Cream, the Kinks, Chuck Berry or the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

Micheal Jackson had big talent, shame he got so weird

Never heard a Swift song, but she sure is popular

Chuck Berry was electric on the guitar and the dance moves but couldn’t touch the Beatles

Beach Boys talented for sure but clearly not close to what the Beatles became after 1966

[GannonFan]

The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift.

I know I'm in the minority but I'll take Cream, the Kinks, Chuck Berry or the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

Micheal Jackson had big talent, shame he got so weird

Never heard a Swift song, but she sure is popular

Chuck Berry was electric on the guitar and the dance moves but couldn’t touch the Beatles

Beach Boys talented for sure but clearly not close to what the Beatles became after 1966

Odd enough, I'm not a big country fan, but the stuff from Swift that I like the most is the stuff when she was just starting out and was more country.

I agree with the Beach Boys. And I think that's the difference between the Beatles and the other ones we're talking about - the Beatles just did a lot more, and much more wide ranging (was going to say eclectic but not quite the right word) than the other ones did. All these bands and artists did great works, I just think the Beatles were more varied in how they did it.

[SeattleGriz]

I can't be derisive and appreciate talent at the same time? I may prefer alternative, heavy metal, country, blues, etc. over pop music and I might mock pop music like I'm doing right now but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate talent.

The Beatles are to music what Bud Light is to beer, hugely popular but not exactly cutting edge. I won't buy a Bud Light myself but if a friend buys me one I will thank them and happily drink it. I won't listen to the Beatles on my own but if a friend wants to listen to them then I will chill out and listen.

Do you make this nonsense just for fun? I can agree that they maybe weren't as cutting edge as say, The Mothers of Invention or Moby Grape or Jefferson Airplane or Quicksilver or Its a Beautiful Day but they also weren't in San Francisco which at the time was the undisputed location of the cutting edge

Yes, he does.

[houndawg]

Again, a lot of this is opinion-based. I like the Kinks, and you can make an argument that they were on par with the Beatles, but the Beatles were far more prolific than the Kinks were. That plays a lot into why the Beatles were so and are still so revered.

The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift.

I know I'm in the minority but I'll take Cream, the Kinks, Chuck Berry or the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

I'll take Little Feat, Mothers of Invention, and The Band over all of them

[houndawg]

Micheal Jackson had big talent, shame he got so weird

Never heard a Swift song, but she sure is popular

Chuck Berry was electric on the guitar and the dance moves but couldn’t touch the Beatles

Beach Boys talented for sure but clearly not close to what the Beatles became after 1966

Odd enough, I'm not a big country fan, but the stuff from Swift that I like the most is the stuff when she was just starting out and was more country.

I agree with the Beach Boys. And I think that's the difference between the Beatles and the other ones we're talking about - the Beatles just did a lot more, and much more wide ranging (was going to say eclectic but not quite the right word) than the other ones did. All these bands and artists did great works, I just think the Beatles were more varied in how they did it.

The Beatles may not have been cutting edge but they were always in the forefront after Bob Dylan turned them on

[Caribbean Hen]

Micheal Jackson had big talent, shame he got so weird

Never heard a Swift song, but she sure is popular

Chuck Berry was electric on the guitar and the dance moves but couldn’t touch the Beatles

Beach Boys talented for sure but clearly not close to what the Beatles became after 1966

Odd enough, I'm not a big country fan, but the stuff from Swift that I like the most is the stuff when she was just starting out and was more country.

I agree with the Beach Boys. And I think that's the difference between the Beatles and the other ones we're talking about - the Beatles just did a lot more, and much more wide ranging (was going to say eclectic but not quite the right word) than the other ones did. All these bands and artists did great works, I just think the Beatles were more varied in how they did it.

So what Taylor Swift song should I listen too? (So I can quickly dismiss her as a musical fraud )

[kalm]

The Beatles, Michael Jackson and Taylor Swift.

I know I'm in the minority but I'll take Cream, the Kinks, Chuck Berry or the Beach Boys over the Beatles.

I'll take Little Feat, Mothers of Invention, and The Band over all of them

I need to listen to Little Feat and the Band more. I also need to check out Mothers of Invention.

If we’re broadening the discussion, give me Floyd and Bowie all day and everyday.

[GannonFan]

Odd enough, I'm not a big country fan, but the stuff from Swift that I like the most is the stuff when she was just starting out and was more country.

I agree with the Beach Boys. And I think that's the difference between the Beatles and the other ones we're talking about - the Beatles just did a lot more, and much more wide ranging (was going to say eclectic but not quite the right word) than the other ones did. All these bands and artists did great works, I just think the Beatles were more varied in how they did it.

So what Taylor Swift song should I listen too? (So I can quickly dismiss her as a musical fraud )

Like I said, I'm a fan of the older, countrier stuff. "Love Story", "Fifteen", and "Our Song" are pretty good.