cwsox Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 My bad, it is indeed Winwood. But I don't think he has gone by "Stevie" since his days with the Spencer Davis Group. that's when I go back to with Stevie The Blind Faith shows must have been something, I'm jealous. it was great! There has been so much revisionist history concerning those early weeks, when a lot of newspapers and music critics did dismiss the Beatles and had to backpeddle and eat crow when the band stuck to the wall. every adult (except maybe Leonard Bernstein) said they were a fad - and we knew better! Anyway, we all know it was Murry the K that single-handedly made the Betles, right? I don't know - he always said so!!! - and I know you emant that in green - - NY was an important market - but hardly made the Beatles everywhere else - outside of NY no one who Murrey the K was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 as for Em, the really important thing is that you must promise yourself that you will live by the words of Peter Townsend, "hope I die before I get old" and Dylan's "don't criticise what you don't understand PT and BD could bust out a lyric and perform it, but deep or original thinkers they were NOT. I hope I die before I get old? If he isn't talking about aging literally, hmm, what could he possibly mean...? Don't criticise what you don't understand? I think Ja Rule and Britney Spears are pathetic by any standard, in any era. They could counter that I don't "understand" them and point to their legion of fans....calling me a hater in the process. Ok. Is it even possibe that some people (not me, oh no) could view Em the Beatmaster as a gimmick, a poseur, an uneducated hack overwhelmed by the very themes he awkwardly tries to tackle......and not be "full of s***" at the same time? Could the Great Universe/Great God ever allow for such a travesty to occur? Serious queston. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Is it even possibe that some people (not me, oh no) could view Em as a gimmick, a poseur, an uneducated hack overwhelmed by the very themes he awkwardly tries to tackle......and not be "full of s***" at the same time? Could the Great Universe/Great God ever allow for such a travesty to occur? Serious queston. yes it would be possible, of course you are talking to a pacifist whose son is in the Marines - all I asked of him was that he do what he thought best after he really thought about the right thing to do and do what his conscience says - all one can ask of anyone - you will understand the difference between calendar years and getting old as your years go by - the difference between living in the present and living in the past tense check out the context of the Dylan song - to me it is essential - don't criticise what you don't understand and some will argue with you on Dylan as someone with something to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 you will understand the difference between calendar years and getting old as your years go by - the difference between living in the present and living in the past tense I personally love music made before 1990 WAY, WAY than most anything since. But BOY do I live in the present in every sense of the word or what! check out the context of the Dylan song - to me it is essential - don't criticise what you don't understand This phrase-- not exactly originated by BD in the first place-- has long since taken on meaning irrespective of the intended context. Why SHOULDN'T it apply Ja Rule's critics if you apply it to Em's with such regularity? and some will argue with you on Dylan as someone with something to say I would agree. But with the "don't criticise something you don't understand", he is way over his head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 This phrase-- not exactly originated by BD in the first place-- has long since taken on meaning irrespective of the intended context. Why SHOULDN'T it apply Ja Rule's critics if you apply it to Em's with such regularity? ok, I am lost - what is the issue with Ja Rule here? I am surely missing something (and I apply the saying to everything - no just music) as to age of music - I also have seaosns tickets to the lyric opera - ae of music is irrelevant as opposed to making Larence Welk music out of what was once alive and revolutionary - enjoy it all, not just the slice that was hit s*** when one was a teeny bopper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 as to age of music - I also have seaosns tickets to the lyric opera - ae of music is irrelevant as opposed to making Larence Welk music out of what was once alive and revolutionary - enjoy it all, not just the slice that was hit s*** when one was a teeny bopper You say you loathe Classic Rock as a format. Why? I love that music and I wasn't even alive when most of the stuff was "alive". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I do not want to argue with PA at all it's cool. I prefer the word "discuss" anyway... I save "arguements" for people like gashwound, etc anyway, I guess I was raised on Clapton, bread, tower of power, beach boys, and toto...so for me, I'm just not a HUGE beatles fan. If I said that clapton's range was better than anyone in the beatles, I'm clearly wrong, but I don't believe I said that. I do believe, as baggio tried to say, that "thing" about EC's voice, that tone, timbre, whatever you call it, is undeniably cool. It's like Jeff Buckley, Neil Young, or Rufus Wainwright. Any one of those guys could drive you mad, because they've got "interesting" and stylized voices. Michael Stipe and Bono also come to mind. I'm just saying that there are better singers, writers, lyricists, etc out there. It does stand that the beatles were great at all of those things. (probably the first time in musical history that that's the case... i.e. why they're so highly touted.) I'll take it to my grave that they're still overrated, however. (once again, not a bad thing...) Brando, you keep placing yourself in my generalized categories...not the other way around. let the normal, musically illiterates speak for themselves Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 ok, I am lost - what is the issue with Ja Rule here? I am surely missing something (and I apply the saying to everything - no just music) If you mean it in the "don't criticise Eminem without hearing him first" sense, then of course I have to agree. But if you mean it in the "don't criticise Eminem because his music is meant for those who can relate to it and whose unique sensibilities it suits-- it's all relative you know-- you don't have the monopoly on what's good", then I have to shrug my shoulders at this overcooked banality that defends everything mediocre, vain and lazy. Eminem's got something. But most of those who fall under the latter umbrella unfortunately are bereft in one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 as baggio tried to say, that "thing" about EC's voice, that tone, timbre, whatever you call it, is undeniably cool. It's like Jeff Buckley, Neil Young, or Rufus Wainwright. Any one of those guys could drive you mad, because they've got "interesting" and stylized voices. Michael Stipe and Bono also come to mind That reminds me of Vlad Visodski, an actor-cum-composer-musician. The dude was a great folk/blues songwriter and a good guitarist. His hearing was excellent. Tremendeous charisma. But his voice was, alas, not particularly "proper"...well, think of DMX after 2 packs a day, with Mark Knopfler-ish inflections. And yet when you looked at the whole package, he had that "something" in sound and voice baggio refered to that earned him great love and admiration of litreally 10s of millions of fans back when it actually meant something-- he was heavily censored in his country and there was very little distribution/production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 I would say don't criticise anything (rap, opera, hevy metal, alt, emo, dada, baroque, neo surrealism whatever) without knowing the genre and the people to whom the art speaks and what it says to them and then consider it on the artistic merits alone - I detest Wagner's politics and life and everything he and his music stood for in his time and later generations but the music itself - is glorous and sublime and worth it that is Triumph of the Will makes it onto my best movies list - I detest what it is about but as a piece of film making - it is (was) revolutionary and pioneering so once can discuss the context or whatever else but yet see the art for what it is - which means no one likes everything of course - I can;t stand country music or jazz but I also will never saythose genres "suck" because they are something I don't like and I can appreicate genius in the genres life is always bigger than us and you of all people know that so why I am telling you what you already know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn12 Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sometimes apparently its just the "in" thing to do....to say, "Wow...the Beatles are overrated." Most of the folks who know something about music can attest to the sheer beauty that was a Lennon-McCartney composition. Great musicians? No, not really. Great vocals? Most of the time, but not God-like. Point is, its hard to question the sum of the entity known as "The Beatles" considering what was accomplished from the early days in The Cavern Club right up to the Abbey Road rooftop concert. No, they were by no means the best musicians ever, but the music that they released from 1964-1970, how they shaped it and transformed it, is still to this day something to marvel at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sometimes apparently its just the "in" thing to do....to say, "Wow...the Beatles are overrated." Most of the folks who know something about music can attest to the sheer beauty that was a Lennon-McCartney composition. Great musicians? No, not really. Great vocals? Most of the time, but not God-like. Point is, its hard to question the sum of the entity known as "The Beatles" considering what was accomplished from the early days in The Cavern Club right up to the Abbey Road rooftop concert. No, they were by no means the best musicians ever, but the music that they released from 1964-1970, how they shaped it and transformed it, is still to this day something to marvel at. capn, that's what I've been saying all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.