Oldies

[Jakesteraholic]

Originally Posted by Tom Cruise

Man I loved "when the music's over"

It was so cool.

Turn off the lights
Turn off the lights



Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

The face in the mirror won't stop
The girl in the window won't drop
A feast of friends
"Alive!" she cried
Waitin' for me
Outside!

OOOooooooooooooooooo....

yes, I find it is much better than the other "end songs" on Doors albums, like The End or Riders on the Storm.

[Mr Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Jakesteraholic

yes, popularity and musical impact are two different things, and i KNOW the beatles were more popular and i think the beatles had a bigger musical impact. experimentation is a neutral quality because, after all, you gotta use it to make good music.


the reason lady gaga deserves a thread is because people want to talk about Gaga. she is a current artist who does crazy shit and is sort of good. it's harder for an old band to warrant significant discussion on this particular message board. and yet the beatles have a ridiculously large thread.


in conclusion, shut up sparkle.

ok, you think the Beatles had a bigger musical impact.
so let's simply point to it as opposed to Floyd that was still putting out records in the 80's ( that a lot of people including musicians listened to)
Lady Gaga is simply style over substance, it's probably the best example of everything that's wrong with music these days when no one cares that the music itself is re-fried, tired 90's dance crap because the singer is so awesomely weird.
how exaclty is an older band harder to discuss? I'm not asking about Herman's Hermits, but say...the kinks? we have a thread on the smiths a band almost 30 years old ( maybe a bit more).

just so were clear, the beatles don't suck, but musically? I'm with Van Morrison, they weren't that important, they were just enviable.

[Mee]

Lady Gaga sucks.

[DAN!]

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle

how exaclty is an older band harder to discuss?

Older Bands have been discussed to death. I can't count how many times in my short life I have disscussed how Stairway to Heaven is one thing or another. And after awhile, there really isn't much else to discuss.

And if the band is broken up, or dead, then the only thing to really discuss about them is their old stuff, which has been beaten to death. Then there is lady gaga, who is over and over in the news and is still working and making new stuff.

It is easier to talk about new stuff because it hasn't been talked about before. And as far as lady gaga is concerned, people seem to talk about her outfits more than her music anyway. Bt that is how it is. It is easier to talk about a band that just came out rather then a band that has been around forever.

And the Beatles not important? that is like saying Elvis isn't important. I am not at all an elvis fan, but you can't deny what he did for music. The beatles and elvis were huge influences in the music industry. Saying they weren't important is just silly.

[Mr Sparkle]

someone said the beatles aren't important?

[Jakesteraholic]

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle

ok, you think the Beatles had a bigger musical impact.
so let's simply point to it as opposed to Floyd that was still putting out records in the 80's ( that a lot of people including musicians listened to)

You win, Mr. Sparkle. The Beatles broke up before the 1980s.

Lady Gaga is simply style over substance, it's probably the best example of everything that's wrong with music these days when no one cares that the music itself is re-fried, tired 90's dance crap because the singer is so awesomely weird.

Ssssso? People want to talk about her. So she has a thread. What's your prob here? You don't think Gaga should have a thread because you personally don't like her music? Sorry, because hers is one of the most popular threads in this forum.

how exaclty is an older band harder to discuss? I'm not asking about Herman's Hermits, but say...the kinks? we have a thread on the smiths a band almost 30 years old ( maybe a bit more).

We shouldn't have a Smiths thread, probably. How many posts does it have? Like 10? That could easily be encapsulated in this thread. And The Kinks are why I started this thread. I saw The Who thread was splitting off into Kinks discussion because The Who ALSO probably shouldn't have a thread, and they're one of the more popular acts ever. But too bad, because no one cares about Who reissues. No one cares about what Roger Daltrey is up to. Exact opposite of The Beatles. Again, it's one of the (or THE) most popular threads in this forum.

I just started this so people didn't have to search pages of this forum when they wanted to type a paragraph about some old song or band and maybe get 2 or 3 responses.

[DAN!]

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle

someone said the beatles aren't important?

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle

just so were clear, the beatles don't suck, but musically? I'm with Van Morrison, they weren't that important, they were just enviable.

[Mr Sparkle]

hahaha, oh Dan you emphasized the wrong portion of the sentence.
"musically"...not culturally not even ideologically.
you can be an important person and not be important in a given aspect of anything in the world.

Bill Clinton.

wasn't that important to the world of sports.

granted, the beatles were musicians but we have to agree that the driving force behind the beatles wasn't music.

[DAN!]

Originally Posted by Mr Sparkle

granted, the beatles were musicians but we have to agree that the driving force behind the beatles wasn't music.

......then what was? The beatles were VERY important in the musical world.

[Jakesteraholic]

i could sit here and type out like 130 good Beatles songs just from memory dude

[Mr Sparkle]

Originally Posted by Jakesteraholic

You win, Mr. Sparkle. The Beatles broke up before the 1980s.

I wasn't arguing that Jake.
you know this.

Originally Posted by Jakesteraholic

Ssssso? People want to talk about her. So she has a thread. What's your prob here? You don't think Gaga should have a thread because you personally don't like her music? Sorry, because hers is one of the most popular threads in this forum.

No, I don't have a problem with it at all.
my point is that the doors can have a thread or whatever band can haz a thread regardless if they were formed before the 1970's.

Originally Posted by Jakesteraholic

We shouldn't have a Smiths thread, probably. How many posts does it have? Like 10? That could easily be encapsulated in this thread. And The Kinks are why I started this thread. I saw The Who thread was splitting off into Kinks discussion because The Who ALSO probably shouldn't have a thread, and they're one of the more popular acts ever. But too bad, because no one cares about Who reissues. No one cares about what Roger Daltrey is up to. Exact opposite of The Beatles. Again, it's one of the (or THE) most popular threads in this forum.

......no really......

Originally Posted by Jakesteraholic

I just started this so people didn't have to search pages of this forum when they wanted to type a paragraph about some old song or band and maybe get 2 or 3 responses.

I'm TOTALLY , awesomely, down with that.
good call.
I like the way you think, congrats you are re-hired.
If you'd said this I don't think I would've bitched and moaned at all.

[Jakesteraholic]

sparkle i have become disillusioned with you!

[Mr Sparkle]

"!" is too much.
I still love you jake.
don't worry.

your heart will go on.

[Jakesteraholic]

i like your taste in newer music, mostly