[QUOTE="MronoC"]Who's more talented, an artist who creates in multiple genres or an artist who vastly expands the genre they work in?LJS9502_basic
Neither necessarily defines talent....
to expand the limits of what is acceptable within the label of a certain genre, music must be widely influential, due to popularity, meaning a general consensus of quality, and speaking musically, what is talent beyond the ability to create music that sounds good, and quality being subjective, it could be said that it takes a more talented band to expand the limitations of a genre.
You are aware that initially The Beatles were a pop boy band.....and at concerts the music couldn't even be heard.;)
Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all.
Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all. quiglythegreat
Now since you want to jump in here and argue with me...One..show me where I said that...and Two...read some music history first.:roll:
Three...I wasn't talking tech....it was wall to wall girl screams the entire concert. I worked with someone that attended...and I asked...and it was thus.
[QUOTE="MronoC"]Who's more talented, an artist who creates in multiple genres or an artist who vastly expands the genre they work in?LJS9502_basic
Neither necessarily defines talent....
to expand the limits of what is acceptable within the label of a certain genre, music must be widely influential, due to popularity, meaning a general consensus of quality, and speaking musically, what is talent beyond the ability to create music that sounds good, and quality being subjective, it could be said that it takes a more talented band to expand the limitations of a genre.
You are aware that initially The Beatles were a pop boy band.....and at concerts the music couldn't even be heard.;)
Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all.
Now since you want to jump in here and argue with me...One..show me where I said that...and Two...read some music history first.:roll:
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all. LJS9502_basic
Now since you want to jump in here and argue with me...One..show me where I said that...and Two...read some music history first.:roll:
Three...I wasn't talking tech....it was wall to wall girl screams the entire concert. I worked with someone that attended...and I asked...and it was thus.
I was being sarcastic in terms of the 'the Beatles suck' thing. You were ripping on them for very unsound reasons. That a lot of girls were screaming and that ruined someone's concert experience doesn't have a thing to do with their music, nor is the White Album effected by what they were in 1963 or something.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all. quiglythegreat
Now since you want to jump in here and argue with me...One..show me where I said that...and Two...read some music history first.:roll:
Three...I wasn't talking tech....it was wall to wall girl screams the entire concert. I worked with someone that attended...and I asked...and it was thus.
I was being sarcastic in terms of the 'the Beatles suck' thing. You were ripping on them for very unsound reasons. That a lot of girls were screaming and that ruined someone's concert experience doesn't have a thing to do with their music, nor is the White Album effected by what they were in 1963 or something.
Second time I've asked you to show me where I said that....don't make up statements and attribute them to me please.
They were a POP band dude....worship all you want but that doesn't change what they were. Jeez.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Oh, very good argument, you win, the Beatles suck. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't matter what they started off as. Know what they really started off as? A funny look in their fathers' eyes. They became tremendous. And as for the concert thing, that's even less pertinent; their albums were genius and what they sounded like in concert doesn't have much to do with it. Even if their music was terrible live, it wouldn't matter very much. Simply that one couldn't hear them terrifically well (and this was in part due to the technology of the time) does not mean anything at all. LJS9502_basic
Now since you want to jump in here and argue with me...One..show me where I said that...and Two...read some music history first.:roll:
Three...I wasn't talking tech....it was wall to wall girl screams the entire concert. I worked with someone that attended...and I asked...and it was thus.
I was being sarcastic in terms of the 'the Beatles suck' thing. You were ripping on them for very unsound reasons. That a lot of girls were screaming and that ruined someone's concert experience doesn't have a thing to do with their music, nor is the White Album effected by what they were in 1963 or something.
Second time I've asked you to show me where I said that....don't make up statements and attribute them to me please.
They were a POP band dude....worship all you want but that doesn't change what they were. Jeez.
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
Well hell, why would you bring up that they were a pop band and that you couldn't hear them at concerts?
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
Well hell, why would you bring up that they were a pop band and that you couldn't hear them at concerts?
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
Well hell, why would you bring up that they were a pop band and that you couldn't hear them at concerts?
You'll have to ask quigly....that is the only statement I made in regard to The Beatles and he seems to translate that as ripping them and saying they suck.
Well hell, why would you bring up that they were a pop band and that you couldn't hear them at concerts?
Did you bother to read everything?
Yes...I have. Upon reviewing it it looks like you were citing those two things (the being pop and the inaudibility (if that's a goddamn word)) as the reason the Beatles cannot have affected any genre in a meaningful way.
Yes...I have. Upon reviewing it it looks like you were citing those two things (the being pop and the inaudibility (if that's a goddamn word)) as the reason the Beatles cannot have affected any genre in a meaningful way. quiglythegreat
Nope.....:) Two different conversations. Better luck next time.
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Yes...I have. Upon reviewing it it looks like you were citing those two things (the being pop and the inaudibility (if that's a goddamn word)) as the reason the Beatles cannot have affected any genre in a meaningful way. LJS9502_basic
Nope.....:) Two different conversations. Better luck next time.
Right.
[QUOTE="MronoC"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="MronoC"]Who's more talented, an artist who creates in multiple genres or an artist who vastly expands the genre they work in?LJS9502_basic
Neither necessarily defines talent....
to expand the limits of what is acceptable within the label of a certain genre, music must be widely influential, due to popularity, meaning a general consensus of quality, and speaking musically, what is talent beyond the ability to create music that sounds good, and quality being subjective, it could be said that it takes a more talented band to expand the limitations of a genre.
You are aware that initially The Beatles were a pop boy band.....and at concerts the music couldn't even be heard.;)
I suppose I'm just misinterpretting this somehow...?
I suppose I'm just misinterpretting this somehow...? quiglythegreat
That was in response to popularity...as for his genre comment....the only think I made in response to the question vis a vis Elvis' talent verse Beatles talent was that neither was necessarily a determining factor. As fore the Beatles...while they were rock...the were still pop.
I suppose I'm just misinterpretting this somehow...? LJS9502_basic
That was in response to popularity...as for his genre comment....the only think I made in response to the question vis a vis Elvis' talent verse Beatles talent was that neither was necessarily a determining factor. As fore the Beatles...while they were rock...the were still pop.
Wait, so did I not read everything? I look down upon people looking down upon me. The post you were responding to had nothing to do with popularity. Whatever you meant, you responded in such a way so that my interpretation of what you said was not as insane as you seemed to have been claiming.
I suppose I'm just misinterpretting this somehow...? quiglythegreat
That was in response to popularity...as for his genre comment....the only think I made in response to the question vis a vis Elvis' talent verse Beatles talent was that neither was necessarily a determining factor. As fore the Beatles...while they were rock...the were still pop.
Wait, so did I not read everything? I look down upon people looking down upon me. The post you were responding to had nothing to do with popularity. Whatever you meant, you responded in such a way so that my interpretation of what you said was not as insane as you seemed to have been claiming.
Whatever....and I'm STILL WAITING for you to show me where I said The Beatles sucked...well?
I suppose I'm just misinterpretting this somehow...? LJS9502_basic
That was in response to popularity...as for his genre comment....the only think I made in response to the question vis a vis Elvis' talent verse Beatles talent was that neither was necessarily a determining factor. As fore the Beatles...while they were rock...the were still pop.
Wait, so did I not read everything? I look down upon people looking down upon me. The post you were responding to had nothing to do with popularity. Whatever you meant, you responded in such a way so that my interpretation of what you said was not as insane as you seemed to have been claiming.
Whatever....and I'm STILL WAITING for you to show me where I said The Beatles sucked...well?
I think he might of thought you used pop band as a degratory term....but obviously not
[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"] Eh, his opinion, not that you're unfunny, but I suppose Greatgone is gone...Chev still posts occasionally though. LJS9502_basic
Obviously it was my opinion....I...get this...MADE THE STATEMENT. I never found either of though guys funny...they didn't make me laugh.
Whatever your problem is with me...I don't care.
This is worse than when the Beatles broke up. You're becoming, that which you debate! :shock:
Log in to comment